[$tinkle]

watching a segment from NBC's mind matters, can a legal - and perhaps ethical - case be made for culling those elements which represent societal liabilities? in particular, psychopaths? are there good psychopaths? harmless ones?

for me, i would have to put my religious convictions aside (God is both the giver & taker of life), but can anyone here who doesn't abide by that creed see the rationale behind it?

 

[Westy]

Would it even be effective? Is there one genetic code that is attributed to psychopaths? I doubt it, the human genetic code is complicated enough that certain traits would be very difficult to remove. I think our efforts would be better spent ridding ourselves of short people. Not midgets of course, they are hilarious.

 

[DRB]

I'm in if you can use it to exterminate clowns.

 

[binary visions]

What's wrong with cute little clowns?

 

[$tinkle]

Would it even be effective? Is there one genetic code that is attributed to psychopaths? I doubt it, the human genetic code is complicated enough that certain traits would be very difficult to remove. I think our efforts would be better spent ridding ourselves of short people. Not midgets of course, they are hilarious.

the way i view the linked (and similar) articles is that all psychopaths have trait X*, but not all people who have trait X are psychopaths. but if there came a day when science said "yea, verily, we have fully & accurately mapped all unsavory aspects of societally undesired psychosis", i think we'd need to have a chat.



* "trait X" could also mean "CT or PET scan results"

 

[ohio]

we have fully & accurately mapped all unsavory aspects of societally undesired psychosis"

since we're speaking hypothetically, I would assume if we have such technology, the technology to treat or alter those genes would not be too far off.

 

[valve bouncer]

Bloody hell Stink, every 6 months you get one of them weird stiffies that needs something f*cked up to satisfy it so you put on your Peter Singer "Whack them Spazzlords" CD and advocate eliminating some section of the population. It's regular as clockwork.

 

[DRB]

What's wrong with cute little clowns?

i ****ing hate you

 

[$tinkle]

Bloody hell Stink, every 6 months you get one of them weird stiffies that needs something f*cked up to satisfy it so you put on your Peter Singer "Whack them Spazzlords" CD and advocate eliminating some section of the population. It's regular as clockwork.

do you say there is dignity in man? if so, upon what basis would you make that claim? to reserve the right to use it to get laid?

if nothing else, peter singer is logically consistent.

 

[LordOpie]

are there practical uses for eugenics?

n8.

..

 

[DRB]

n8.

..

eugenics not euthanasia

 

[Stray_cat]

If you’re talking about using eugenics as a method of evolving out social un-desirables, then you have to make the huge assumption that these undesirable traits have nothing to do with experience. I think modern psychology has shown that our social stigmas are not constrained simply by genetics. There’s always the option of breeding too, Nazi Germany would be the best one to ask on this.

 

[$tinkle]

since we're speaking hypothetically, I would assume if we have such technology, the technology to treat or alter those genes would not be too far off.

i'd like to claim you stumbled into a cleverly laid trap, but we both know better...

your post got me to thinking: if we have the technology to research and/or (re)create organs from embryonic stem cells - which many conservatives consider the most vulnerable form of human, therefore deserving full protection under the law - then should we also consider only using the non-embryonic stem cells (i'm thinking cells from u-cord blood)? we've already seen articles w/in the past couple of years citing how various organs/appendages have been formed from these.

 

[Westy]

i'd like to claim you stumbled into a cleverly laid trap, but we both know better...

your post got me to thinking: if we have the technology to research and/or (re)create organs from embryonic stem cells - which many conservatives consider the most vulnerable form of human, therefore deserving full protection under the law - then should we also consider only using the non-embryonic stem cells (i'm thinking cells from u-cord blood)? we've already seen articles w/in the past couple of years citing how various organs/appendages have been formed from these.

So what you are saying is I can grow an extra liver and wiener? Pass the bourbon and viagra please.

 

[$tinkle]

i've had all the fun i can with mine.
time for some bunnies, pimento, & drapes

 

[Changleen]

We can already alter genes, it's the knowing which ones to alter which is complex.

 

[valve bouncer]

do you say there is dignity in man? if so, upon what basis would you make that claim? to reserve the right to use it to get laid?

if nothing else, peter singer is logically consistent.

From watching the vid it's a long bow to draw to get from where they are to where you are. I'm sure you're aware of my views on the death penalty, can you be at all surprised if I think this a non-starter.
Of course Peter Singer can argue logically, Princeton is not a charm school as far as I know, doesn't make some of his more extreme conclusions any more palatable.

 

[jaydee]

The thing is that psychopathic personalities don't always produce violent criminals, so you can't justifiably eliminate them a la The Minority Report. Most of them manage to fit somewhere close to the nebulous boundaries of the law and gravitate toward areas where their unscrupulous, amoral behavior and lust for control and attention can be assets, i.e., business, political office, the military, criminal law, rap music, etc.
On second thought, let's get rid of them at birth; the world would be a more pleasant and safer place.