It seems progressives, Socialists, and other statists are hoping that the world has forgotten the immortality of state-sponsored eugenics policies of 60 years ago ...

This gentleman has the right to speak his mind, but his opinions and ideas should be outright discredited should he seek to incorporate this evil in to government policy

Government mandated eugenics is a crime and those in positions of power who advocate such policies should be stripped of their office immediately


http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/

One of the more sickening parts of this interview

"In your paper you argue that some of the initial opposition to these solutions is rooted in a particular kind of status quo bias. Can you explain what you mean by that?

Liao: Sure. Take having smaller children for example. People might resist this idea because they might think that there is some sort of optimal---the average height in a given society, say. But, I think it's worth remembering how fluid human traits like height are. A hundred years ago people were much shorter on average, and there was nothing wrong with them medically. And so, if people are resistant to the idea of engineering humans to be smaller because of some notion of an optimal height, they might be operating from a status quo bias."

 

-----signature-----

Eugenics has unfairly been given a bad name by people who had no real interest in eugenics.

Humanity would be well served by a voluntary eugenics program.

 

-----signature-----

I read the same article you did, but I read the lead author repeatedly saying that they didn't advocate for any particular action, especially those mandated by a central authority.





Also, it's worthwhile to note that The Atlantic generally leans right of centre, because those kinds of things seem to matter here.

 

-----signature-----

Vegetarian, cat-eyed hobbit? Fuggin sign me up, bitches.

 

-----signature-----

Oh lord. Not this idiot again.

 

-----signature-----

Yeah, he's fairly good at posting stuff that he didn't thoroughly read.

 

-----signature-----

Lead the way. The rest of us will follow as soon as you give us a thumbs-up.

 

-----signature-----

Of course he's going to say its voluntary, but in the same article, the section I quotes, he marginalizes those who would not volunteer for such a programs, so your strwman has been knocked down ....

since their will never be a unamimous consent for this abomination of policy ... what we seeing is the selling of 2 progressive platforms as a solution to a so called man-made problem.

Just as Al Gore's railing about global warming was not government policy, we saw how his allies in government picked up his rant and started making it government policy.

Now we see a lamestream media source now "selling" eugenics just as "global warming" was sold.

When do you wait to speak out ... before the policy gains momentum or after it is passed?

 

-----signature-----

In the article, Liao spends more time talking about ethical contraints than he spends marginalizing anybody. Actually, he can barely be said to be marginalizing anyone. Perhaps the hyper-sensitive among us might feel marginalized. That means you. Otherwise, Liao isn't spreading evil snake oil. Will the government take the ball and run with it? Perhaps. That makes the government the spreaders of the snake oil. Oh, and you.

Edit: If I want to be 4 ft tall with cat's eyes, shouldn't I be able to? Voluntarily? The technology isn't the problem. The likelihood of government hijack IS the problem. Regardless of the probability of that continuum, you should learn the distinction.

 

-----signature-----

BT always delivers.

 

-----signature-----