Cleaning the Gene Pool

[COLOR="Red"]Okay, ignoring all logistics, effort, time, money, and every other conceivable thing that would not allow this to happen,

Say all governments of the world decided to test each and every human being alive and use the Human Genome Project to find those genes which may cause terminal diseases, and their blood to search for every other non-DNA linked disease. That way, carriers and those with certain diseases would be found out (Autism, HIV/AIDS, other non-curable diseases). All those people then would be shipped to, say, Africa, for the remainder of their lives. Those in Africa without these "errors" would be sent elsewhere. All trade routes would be cut off from Africa, no one going in or out after the migration of the "errors". All land and seas around Africa would be monitored to make sure no one leaves. The people in Africa would stay there and fend for themselves. They could do whatever they wanted. They could form their own, unified nation of "errors", or just go crazy and party all the time. But then again, if any of them wanted to survive, they would need farmers, doctors, etc., which they would have to get from their own population of "errors". Eventually, in the long run, these "errors" would cease to exist. After that, Africa could be repopulated with those without non-curable diseases.

I've always had this idea in my head. I'm wondering of what SP thinks about this. Would it be a good idea for the future to cleanse the gene pool and not allow those with say, HIV/AIDS, to repopulate with those without? I think it would be a interesting idea.

Of course there are ramifications to this. What about children with down syndrome, who will take care of them? What about those who were raped and got HIV/AIDS from their attacker? I realize that there are some things in this topic that would make me cringe, but imagining a world free of deadly diseases I think would make up for it.

Of course you could say I'm biased against those who have these "errors". I probably would have a different idea if I did have Huntington's for example. But, there has been a strain of Alzheimers in my family, but only 1-2 people that I know. My family has also been at a higher risk of heart disease, but that of course is from being Hungarian. So I guess you could say that I might be an "error", yet I highly doubt this.

Someone would bring up the argument of what if a person I knew has Herpes? Well, all the people I care about aren't stupid enough to go without a condom, even if they have sex and increase their chances of a STD.

And imagine a world where there would be no prevalent disease. Where people could not worry about having kids with their spouse because one of them is a carrier. I can only think of more pros than cons for this idea.

Thoughts? [/COLOR]

Have you thought what this would be like given that you are one of those errors? Humankind is not a bonsai tree. Furthermore, physicality is not everything about a human being.

When do you draw the line? Are psychological illnesses worthy of cleansing? (autism for example, or schizophrenia)

I think parents should be able to abort fetuses for whatever reason they want (including genetically inherited diseases) but that's a far more individual thing, and before the person is born. The parents are the ones who will have to live with the kid, they should be allowed some control over who the kid is.

As for diseases like AIDS that are not genetic, just transmitted person to person - wouldn't it be better to find a cure than to condemn everyone who has it?


and you can't make a magical society where everyone is healthy, diseases are constantly evolving and if you eliminate a large quantity of the gene pool, what remains is that much more likely to be susceptible to the same disease when it finally appears.

You start with schizophrenia and mental retardation, and you finish with gays, Jews, gypsies, Catholics and other assorted "undesirables." Been done multiple times.

I'm totally against this, as I'm pretty sure I count as one of those "undesirables."

Hmm... I would say I would be against this purely because the line is so blurred.

[COLOR="red"]

When do you draw the line? Are psychological illnesses worthy of cleansing? (autism for example, or schizophrenia)

I think parents should be able to abort fetuses for whatever reason they want (including genetically inherited diseases) but that's a far more individual thing, and before the person is born. The parents are the ones who will have to live with the kid, they should be allowed some control over who the kid is.

As for diseases like AIDS that are not genetic, just transmitted person to person - wouldn't it be better to find a cure than to condemn everyone who has it?


and you can't make a magical society where everyone is healthy, diseases are constantly evolving and if you eliminate a large quantity of the gene pool, what remains is that much more likely to be susceptible to the same disease when it finally appears.

If AIDS would have a cure, there would be some advancement by now. Maybe I just haven't read up on it in a while, but I see no advancement.

But the point of this "experiment" is to eliminate those diseases from the pool.

Again, as I stated, if everything to work out, I know stuff like this won't happen magically.
[/COLOR]

You know what the holocaust was, right?
Yeah.

And also...

Nobody is perfect.

-edit-

That's like punishing people for something that isn't their fault. I think it's horrible that anybody could think that this is a good idea.

Another solution (With it's own problems, but a lot less of them) is to just sterilise them. That would also take them out of the gene pool but allow them to live a mostly normal life. Again though, where do you draw the line?

I would be a possible canidate for getting shipped to Africa as I'm kinda weird and don't really think like most "normal" people do. That's just ridiculous and I don't feel like living in a desert for the rest of my life. I can get a good job and contribute a lot more to society than a lot of idiots that have nothing genetically wrong with them could. And if I want to spread my genes, I will. I don't think that there's anything wrong with people like me around. (I'm slightly autistic, so I guess it then goes back to where do you draw the line?)

Somewhat like Genocide?
NO
JUST FUCKING NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You know what the holocaust was, right?
Yeah.

And also...

Nobody is perfect.

.

Pretty much supporting a genocide if this were to be carried out. This is pretty much saying "hey, you're inferior to me, therefore I'm going to seclude you and let you die."
Holocaust: "Hey, you're not of the Aryan race, so I'm going to seclude you in concentration camps and let you die."

Also, what Heidi said.

If you end up being on of the "inferior" people, then what? Would you still be in support of this? There's a line between actually thinking something like this could work, and experiencing this happen.

Oh, and saying that people are stupid for getting Herpes because they didn't wear a condom isn't exactly the best thing to say. Condoms don't work 100% of the time.

And this doesn't even take into account all of the economic problems this would cause. First there's the issue of spending money to transport everyone to Africa. Then there's the problem of having to monitor Africa 24/7. And then after that there's the problem of trying to get jobs stable so that certain industries don't completely fail.

You're pretty much saying "Hey, I don't want some people to die in the future, so I'm just going to kill all of you, even with the possibility that you won't die of these diseases." It just isn't right.

The TS sounds like this:

[spoiler=]

Nowadays I do not speak very often. In the first place I have little time for speaking, and in the second place I believe that this is a time for action rather than speech. We are involved in a conflict in which more than the victory of only one country or the other is at stake; it is rather a war of two opposing worlds. I shall try to give you, as far as possible in the time at my disposal, an insight into the essential reasons underlying this conflict. I shall, however, confine myself to Western Europe only. The peoples who are primarily affected - 85 million Germans, 46 million Britishers, 45 million Italians, and about 37 million Frenchmen -are the cores of the States who were or still are opposed in war. If I make a comparison between the living conditions of these peoples the following facts become evident:

Forty-six million Britishers dominate and govern approximately 16 million square miles of the surface of the earth. Thirty-seven million Frenchmen dominate and govern a combined area of approximately 4 million square miles. Forty-five million Italians possess, taking into consideration only those territories in any way capable of being utilized, an area of scarcely 190,000 square miles. Eighty-five million Germans possess as their living space scarcely 232,000 square miles. That is to say: 85 million Germans own only 232,000 square miles on which they must live their lives and 46 million Britishers possess 16 million square miles.

Now, my fellow-countrymen, this world has not been so divided up by providence or Almighty God. This allocation has been made by man himself. The land was parcelled out for the most part during the last 300 years, that is, during the period in which, unfortunately, the German people were helpless and torn by internal dissension. Split up into hundreds of small states in consequence of the Treaty of Muenster at the end of the Thirty Years' War, our people frittered away their entire strength in internal strife.... While during this period the Germans, notwithstanding their particular ability among the people of Western Europe, dissipated their powers in vain internal struggles, the division of the world proceeded beyond their borders. It was not by treaties or by binding agreements, but exclusively by the use of force that Britain forged her gigantic Empire.

The second people that failed to receive their fair share in this distribution, namely the Italians, experienced and suffered a similar fate. Torn by internal conflicts, devoid of unity, split up into numerous small states, this people also dissipated all their energy in internal strife. Nor was Italy able to obtain even the natural position in the Mediterranean which was her due.

Thus in comparison with others, these two powerful peoples have received much less than their fair share. The objection might be raised: Is this really of decisive importance?

My fellow-countrymen, man does not exist on theories and phrases, on declarations or on systems of political philosophy; he lives on what he can gain from the soil by his own labor in the form of food and raw materials. This is what he can eat, this is what he can use for manufacture and production. If a man's own living conditions offer him too little, his life will be wretched. We see that within the countries themselves, fruitful areas afford better living conditions than poor barren lands. In the one case there are flourishing villages; in the other poverty-stricken communities. A man may live in a stony desert or in a fruitful land of plenty. This handicap can never be fully overcome by theories, nor even by the will to work.

We see that the primary cause for the existing tensions lies in the unfair distribution of the riches of the earth. And it is only natural that evolution follows the same rule in the larger framework as it does in the case of individuals. Just as the tension existing between rich and poor within a country must be compensated for either by reason or often if reason fails, by force, so in the life of a nation one cannot claim everything and leave nothing to others....

[/spoiler]
No offense.

Oh and uhhhhhh a lot of the academically smartest people are a bit autistic. So if you removed everybody that was a bit autistic, I think you'll find that that is enough to slow down technological advances And you don't want that do you?

And people with other mental illnesses can have their own strong points. Do you really want a whole bunch of people that think the same? And what about psychologists? I have this belief that they're crazy for their interest in crazy people, but this would make their jobs more boring to them/ make them unemployed Though I guess they could get shipped to Africa as well...

Oh and what about people that are likely to develop cancer? A lot of the females in my mothers side of the family have had or even died of ovarian/ breast cancer. Some testing was done awhile ago and it is possible that there is a certain gene in the family, which means that I have a 1 in 4 chance (Or was it 1 in 2?) of developing breast/ovarian cancer before I am 50 or something! Personally I'm okay with it as I know about it and I'll just be checked for it really often and it would probably be found before it killed me, but yeah. Do I have to go to Africa because of that???

That's like punishing people for something that isn't their fault. I think it's horrible that anybody could think that this is a good idea.

Another solution (With it's own problems, but a lot less of them) is to just sterilise them. That would also take them out of the gene pool but allow them to live a mostly normal life. Again though, where do you draw the line?

I would be a possible canidate for getting shipped to Africa as I'm kinda weird and don't really think like most "normal" people do. That's just ridiculous and I don't feel like living in a desert for the rest of my life. I can get a good job and contribute a lot more to society than a lot of idiots that have nothing genetically wrong with them could. And if I want to spread my genes, I will. I don't think that there's anything wrong with people like me around. (I'm slightly autistic, so I guess it then goes back to where do you draw the line?)

Sterilization would only "help" against genetic disorders.

Either way, bad idea.

Sterilization would only "help" against genetic disorders.

Either way, bad idea.

Is that not the idea of this thread though? "Cleaning the Gene Pool". Moving people to Africa removes them from the Gene Pool. So does sterilization.

And yeah, I actually facepalm at this thread.

[COLOR="red"]Guys, stop freaking out. I simply asked what your thoughts would be like if something like this were to happen. Jeez, I guess the Rubik's Cube isn't for intelligent discussion, it's for bashing the topic starter. Forgive me for bringing up a topic that I thought was interesting.

Besides, some of you forgot the part of "if this could possibly happen, which it won't obviously". Of course I know this won't happen.

This wasn't genocide. It is just a hypothetical situation where a bunch of people would be shipped off to Africa. I didn't even choose a country beforehand when I wrote this up. Africa came to mind so I went with it. Of course I know there is no "partying" or "working hard gene". I merely stated that those in Africa could do whatever they wanted, whether party or work hard. The only reason this sounds like genocide is because it is in Africa. If it would be America, then SP wouldn't consider it genocide because you can live off of the land. Africa, not so much. Hell, I don't even know if those in Africa could create something that turns sand into bread. This was a hypothetical situation where the lot fell to Africa. The people aren't killed out right, it is just that the land might kill them off.[/COLOR]

Guys, stop freaking out. I simply asked what your thoughts would be like if something like this were to happen. Jeez, I guess the Rubik's Cube isn't for intelligent discussion, it's for bashing the topic starter. Forgive me for bringing up a topic that I thought was interesting.

Besides, some of you forgot the part of "if this could possibly happen, which it won't obviously". Of course I know this won't happen.

This wasn't genocide. It is just a hypothetical situation where a bunch of people would be shipped off to Africa. I didn't even choose a country beforehand when I wrote this up. Africa came to mind so I went with it. Of course I know there is no "partying" or "working hard gene". I merely stated that those in Africa could do whatever they wanted, whether party or work hard. The only reason this sounds like genocide is because it is in Africa. If it would be America, then SP wouldn't consider it genocide because you can live off of the land. Africa, not so much. Hell, I don't even know if those in Africa could create something that turns sand into bread. This was a hypothetical situation where the lot fell to Africa. The people aren't killed out right, it is just that the land might kill them off.

We are not calling it genocide because it's in Africa. I'm pretty sure most, if not all of us here realize Africa was an example.
We're calling it genocide because of this, "Eventually, in the long run, these "errors" would cease to exist."
You're saying that you're just going to let these people die off. Whether or not you directly murder them or not, it's still genocide. It would be organizing to "kill" mass numbers of people.

And if "freaking out" is our thoughts, it's our thoughts. If we see this in a strong, negative way, then "freaking out" would be our thoughts on the subject.
And implying that we aren't intelligent for thinking that this would not only be cruel and unusual, but also due to the fact that it would be economically unsafe, isn't exactly something I take kindly.

Dude, if it was America, it'd still be considered genocide.

Genocide as defined by the United Nations:

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Yeah, I could see it fall under some of those categories.

And bashing...we're not flaming you. We're just disagreeing with you. There's a difference.

[COLOR="red"]

We are not calling it genocide because it's in Africa. I'm pretty sure most, if not all of us here realize Africa was an example.
We're calling it genocide because of this, "Eventually, in the long run, these "errors" would cease to exist."
You're saying that you're just going to let these people die off. Whether or not you directly murder them or not, it's still genocide. It would be organizing to "kill" mass numbers of people.

I took it in the sense that Africa doens't have natural resources and land to farm on as say, America. There would be less and less food. Kids die everyday from a lack of food, is it genocide?[/COLOR]