| eugenics | |
|
|
Author | Message |
---|
Watermelon ZEK in siberian gulag
Posts : 2650 Join date : 2008-04-05 Age : 30 Location : springfield, il
| Subject: eugenics Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:01 am | |
| do you support eugenics i think it could be good
this is my idea for an ideal system of eugenics
no one would be forced to not have a child, even if they had 'bad' genes but they would be taxed according to how much of a burden the child is likely to have on the economy
for example if because of the genes of the parents the child has a 30% of getting disease x and disease x costs 100 labor credits (lol) to cure then there is a tax of 30 labor credits for them to have the child
and there would be taxes for other diseases and defects calculated in a similar way
and if the parents had 'good' genes that would make the child likely to contribute to the economy such as if the child would be more likely to be intelligent or something (i don't know if intelligence can be predicted from genes, i'm just giving an example) they would be subsidied for having that child based on a similar kind of calculation
the benefits of this system would be 'bad' genes would be discouraged 'good' genes would be encouraged
it would be more gradual than plain eugenics (forbidding people to reproduce) so it would be easier to detect unintended consequences early
it would fund health care at least to cure the diseases that can be predicted by genetics because money is being raised when the person that could have the disease is born so he/she won't have to pay
also it seems the most fair way because it's not really someone's fault if they were born likely to have a disease so it's not fair to them to make them pay and for other systems of free health care the economic burden falls on everyone while in this case it falls on the people whose fault it really is, the parents of the child
there are medical problems that have nothing to do with genetics of course like damage from car crashes and stuff which i think should still be free and the burden of that would fall on everyone still
this idea has flaws such as
i don't think it's currently possible to predict very many things based on genes technology and research will have to be more advanced for this to work well
it's possible that people will have children illegally or something without the state knowing i don't know how common it is for people to have more than one child in china
this idea is based on 'pigovian taxation' i just applied it to eugenics discuss | |
|
| |
MightyObserver World Republic Party Member
Posts : 670 Join date : 2008-09-30 Age : 31 Location : Earth
| Subject: Re: eugenics Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:16 am | |
| - Watermelon wrote:
- Spoiler:
do you support eugenics i think it could be good
this is my idea for an ideal system of eugenics
no one would be forced to not have a child, even if they had 'bad' genes but they would be taxed according to how much of a burden the child is likely to have on the economy
for example if because of the genes of the parents the child has a 30% of getting disease x and disease x costs 100 labor credits (lol) to cure then there is a tax of 30 labor credits for them to have the child
and there would be taxes for other diseases and defects calculated in a similar way
and if the parents had 'good' genes that would make the child likely to contribute to the economy such as if the child would be more likely to be intelligent or something (i don't know if intelligence can be predicted from genes, i'm just giving an example) they would be subsidied for having that child based on a similar kind of calculation
the benefits of this system would be 'bad' genes would be discouraged 'good' genes would be encouraged
it would be more gradual than plain eugenics (forbidding people to reproduce) so it would be easier to detect unintended consequences early
it would fund health care at least to cure the diseases that can be predicted by genetics because money is being raised when the person that could have the disease is born so he/she won't have to pay
also it seems the most fair way because it's not really someone's fault if they were born likely to have a disease so it's not fair to them to make them pay and for other systems of free health care the economic burden falls on everyone while in this case it falls on the people whose fault it really is, the parents of the child
there are medical problems that have nothing to do with genetics of course like damage from car crashes and stuff which i think should still be free and the burden of that would fall on everyone still
this idea has flaws such as
i don't think it's currently possible to predict very many things based on genes technology and research will have to be more advanced for this to work well
it's possible that people will have children illegally or something without the state knowing i don't know how common it is for people to have more than one child in china
this idea is based on 'pigovian taxation' i just applied it to eugenics discuss
In summary, you're proposing we cut down on the poor population and make the freedom to legally have children, regardless of who you are, a luxury of the rich (or occasionally the middle class, depending on the severity of the possible disease)? I am not a fan or this idea. | |
|
| |
Watermelon ZEK in siberian gulag
Posts : 2650 Join date : 2008-04-05 Age : 30 Location : springfield, il
| Subject: Re: eugenics Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:28 pm | |
| i think this should be used when socialism is already established so the wealth would be basically evenly distributed so having children wouldn't be a privilege of 'the rich' because such a thing wouldn't exist
but even if this were used in capitalism i don't think it would be that bad yes it would be harder to afford for poor people but then if their children got a disease, it would be hard for them to afford anyway this is just moving the time when they have to pay from when they get the disease to when the child is born so if it does discourage poor people from having children, it probably saves them money in the long run | |
|
| |
Liche Chairman of the Supreme Council
Posts : 4613 Join date : 2008-01-30 Age : 30 Location : USA-Virginia
| Subject: Re: eugenics Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:19 am | |
| at first glance eugenics is either awesome or disgusting, personally i don't see it working from both ends. the list of people not aloud to reproduce would eventually get so huge humanity would die out, or it would be so heavily opposed that the eugenics movement would die out. | |
|
| |
CoolKidX Chairman of the Supreme Council
Posts : 4639 Join date : 2008-02-14 Location : Netherlands
| Subject: Re: eugenics Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:23 pm | |
| I think this idea has got something but its not really pratical. And you really need tight rules for the tax and you need to be sure, which in most times you can't be. It is kind of fair, because those with really bad gene's could be a burden for the economy later on etc. but it really sounds kind of in-humane, discouraging people from getting children with bad genes because the economy can't make money of them. But I guess capitalism is all about that . | |
|
| |
Kenzu Chairman of the WR Committee
Posts : 1842 Join date : 2007-08-17 Age : 37 Location : Austria - Vienna
| Subject: Re: eugenics Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:05 pm | |
| - Watermelon wrote:
- do you support eugenics
i think it could be good
this is my idea for an ideal system of eugenics
no one would be forced to not have a child, even if they had 'bad' genes but they would be taxed according to how much of a burden the child is likely to have on the economy
for example if because of the genes of the parents the child has a 30% of getting disease x and disease x costs 100 labor credits (lol) to cure then there is a tax of 30 labor credits for them to have the child
and there would be taxes for other diseases and defects calculated in a similar way
and if the parents had 'good' genes that would make the child likely to contribute to the economy such as if the child would be more likely to be intelligent or something (i don't know if intelligence can be predicted from genes, i'm just giving an example) they would be subsidied for having that child based on a similar kind of calculation
the benefits of this system would be 'bad' genes would be discouraged 'good' genes would be encouraged
it would be more gradual than plain eugenics (forbidding people to reproduce) so it would be easier to detect unintended consequences early
it would fund health care at least to cure the diseases that can be predicted by genetics because money is being raised when the person that could have the disease is born so he/she won't have to pay
also it seems the most fair way because it's not really someone's fault if they were born likely to have a disease so it's not fair to them to make them pay and for other systems of free health care the economic burden falls on everyone while in this case it falls on the people whose fault it really is, the parents of the child
there are medical problems that have nothing to do with genetics of course like damage from car crashes and stuff which i think should still be free and the burden of that would fall on everyone still
this idea has flaws such as
i don't think it's currently possible to predict very many things based on genes technology and research will have to be more advanced for this to work well
it's possible that people will have children illegally or something without the state knowing i don't know how common it is for people to have more than one child in china
this idea is based on 'pigovian taxation' i just applied it to eugenics discuss Usually you cant cure the disease. I assume you are talking about some diseases the children are born with. Dont you? | |
|
| |
Watermelon ZEK in siberian gulag
Posts : 2650 Join date : 2008-04-05 Age : 30 Location : springfield, il
| Subject: Re: eugenics Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:53 pm | |
| @liche people wouldn't be not allowed to reproduce there would just be a tax for people with bad genes and the list would get smaller, not bigger because the bad genes would die out gradually
@marnix i agree it's not currently practical it's possible it could be in the future though and i don't care about being 'humane'
@kenzu yes | |
|
| |
Sponsored content
| Subject: Re: eugenics | |
| |
|
| |
| eugenics | |
|