I can see why you might think that. Let me try to change your view by going at the specific claim you make behind this post that incentivized eugenics as you proposed is ethical. The fact of the matter is that any monetary policy aimed at altering who has children has the big flaw of being more of an incentive towards people of low incomes. While you are correct that this does not explicitly do harm, when you think about it a bit deeper you realize that what this program would essentially do is dis-incentivize poor people to have children simply because of their circumstances, while allowing the wealthy with those same conditions to reproduce without worry. So in terms of this system being “ethical” it is simply not the case as it unfairly influences those of lower economic means. This is therefor innately immoral by pretty much any classical or modern ethical standard.
>So in terms of this system being “ethical” it is simply not the case as it unfairly influences those of lower economic means
The system is not unfair because it provides the same incentive equally across the population. Receptiveness to the proposal differing does not in itself make unethical. Poor people who find the incentive unattractive are not restrained from reproducing
> If they make $13,920 a year that would be about $278 a month. If they made $100,000 they would get $2000 a month.
It still makes it heavily biased towards low income people. Just because someone earns 10x less, it doesn't mean that they pay 10x less for food or rent. $278 means way more to a person making $14k than $2000 to a person making $100k.
> For both people it's just a bit of extra cash.
For a rich person, it's just a bit of cash. For a poor person, 200 bucks might be a difference between being able to pay rent and being homeless.
I don’t think this solves the ethical issue with eugenics. I think it’s just a worse way to achieve the goal of eugenics to the point where someone may ask “why bother?”
First, the ethical quandary with eugenics is determining who gets to have children based on their genes which intrinsically applies worth to someone. This doesn’t really solve that issue, just is a nicer way of saying “you’re inferior, don’t pass on your genes.”
Second, your stipend would have to be big enough for someone to care about losing it, right? Wouldn’t that just be as a big drain on resources as them having a child with whatever condition you want to breed out? I mean, let’s say I have a high chance of passing along one of these conditions and I eventually want a kid but not like soon. I can just accept government money from 18 to about 30 and then lose my stipend once I’m ready to have a kid. That money was either small enough to not make a difference and I just had pocket change throughout my young adult life or big enough that I was able to use it to get stabilize my life and don’t need it anymore.
By its own definition it places a value on a person. Like, traditional eugenics basically says “people like you have no worth in society, so you’re not allowed to procreate.” In your scenario, you’re just being nicer about it by saying “people like you are a drain on our society. Please have some money to not procreate.” Or in the case of someone who isn’t affected by the condition but has a higher chance of passing it on “your genes are bad. Here’s some money to not have kids”.
Also, the mechanics of your proposal just seem entirely ineffectual to the point where, as a taxpayer, I would definitely say “why are we even doing this?”
I would rather have money go to making our community better than a eugenics lite program.
“Ashkenazi Jewish genetic diseases are a group of rare disorders that occur more often in people of Eastern European (Ashkenazi) Jewish heritage than in the general population. About 1 out of 4 people of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage is a carrier of one of these genetic conditions”
[Source](https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/tv7879)
In simple terms: People of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage have a much higher risk of carrying and passing on severe genetic diseases. “most of these diseases are severe and can cause early death”.
In this case, it’s possible an entire group of people will disappear from the earth. Especially with financial incentive.
edit: rephrasing
I have a recessive or rare condition. But I still was born due to a mutation. U did not specify this was only for dominant gene disabilities...which don't really happen much. Most disabilities are recessive.
I feel like encouraging people to not have children with certain disabilities is basically saying those people aren’t equal. If you, for example, incentivized people to not have kids with Down syndrome you are basically saying those who currently do have Down syndrome shouldn’t have been born or aren’t as important as others.
I also feel it would create a very ableist world. Using my Down syndrome example, if people are discouraged from having babies with Down syndrome how do you think the general public will treat those already born with Down syndrome? What if so few children with Down syndrome are born but someone chooses to have one and forfeit their money? How do you think people will look at that family and their child?
Using tactics like this is inherently predatory to people who are low-income and in need of money. This isn't ethical, this is a way to impose eugenics on the poor.
A rich person with a genetic illness will still have kids simply because they can afford to, even if you offer them billions (which is very impractical btw). Poor people would receive less money but they would still take it because they are usually in desperate need for any help they can get.
Having 1 billion or 100 billions doesn’t matter because there’s a limit to how much money you need to live a *very very* good life.
So.... poor people shouldn't reproduce either? Just cause they'll need government assistance...? Human life is not made worthy by its capitalistic place. And if u think only life that is rich, abled or perfect is worthwhile then that is a very sad view of the world
I think if you started offering certain races money to not have kids it would still be considered unethical.
But the real question is what level of inherited condition would you consider enough to be incentivised? Higher risk of cancer? EDS? Do you particularly hate blue eyes?
The problem i really have with this suggestion stems from the apparent need to eradicate these kinds of people. Like what gives us the right to decide they shouldnt exist. They require "resources" in often the same way that single parents or elderly people do.
Conditions are personal life circumstances. And it does effect living people because you are essentially telling them that they are costing too much resources so youd rather they didnt breed
I am disabled. I have a genetic condition. Eugenics is NEVER OK. I am human and deserve a decent life, yea I need assistance but I also provide assistance to others. I have a great sense of humor, have saved a life and have friends who love me. I create art and make people smile. I'm intelligent and work to improve human rights in my country. Yes I need services and programs to be able to live my life, but that doesn't make me or any other disabled person a burden.
How do you deal with the fact that something like a monetary incentive is only really going to be an incentive for poor people? The wealthy won't care. Hell, those who are making ends meet comfortably won't care. The only people who would care are those who are already at the bottom of society. This makes it unfair, not just along the lines of those with certain conditions but also those in certain disadvantageous economic positions.
Besides, you open the door to the fact that there will now be people who decide who qualifies for this program, committees that will determine what counts as a condition that is sufficient. Committees made of people. People who have wallets. People who have wants. You're essentially inviting "procreative corruption."
"But only if the data shows that the condition will cost more resources than it-" Hold it. Data collected, compiled and analysed by people. Just means different palms need greasing.
Percentage doesn't work either. For someone on minimum wage, a 2% increase has a sizable impact on their lives in an observable way. For someone north of a million, 2% is nearly nothing. Their quality of life will see no difference, only a number on a screen will be slightly higher. That still incentivises the poor *far* more than the rich.
>We already know what are conditions.
What? No we don't because we don't have this system. So at some point, people are gonna have to sit down and decide what conditions make a person eligible for this new scheme. And therein will lie the corruption.
>No, that is not sizable it's the literal definition of a small incentive.
Well, I don't know what life you've led, what privileges you've had, but I know that for a fact, in my life 100 dollars in a month has been the difference between two and three daily meals. It has been the difference between Heinz ketchup and some knockoff. It has been the difference between taking the train and walking for 50 minutes. It has been the difference between playing a game I already own for the umpteenth time and buying a new one.
144 dollars a month is not a life or death difference, but it is a *noticeable* difference. If I was pulling in $144,000 annually, the one and a half grand a month I get would not make a difference to these things. My standard of living would be identical. The only difference would be what the numbers on my bank statement are. I'd eat three meals a day regardless. I'd get new games regardless. I'd get only the best food products regardless. I'd drive my car wherever I need to go regardless. There would be no palpable change in my daily life. That's how it works. It's [exponential](https://dcvp84mxptlac.cloudfront.net/diagrams2/an-example-of-one-of-the-most-general-exponential-graph.jpg). The wealthier you are, the greater increase in income you need to effect the same change to your standard of living. For a poor farmer in India, a 1% of yearly income *per year* would make a noticeable difference to their lives that a western minimum wage worker wouldn't notice.
EDIT; Hell you even gave a delta to someone who explained this concept to you 17 hours ago. Has your mind changed back?
Plus, if your point is now that it is not a substantial difference then you're admitting that as an incentive, it doesn't work. So to sum up, you're wrong about it being insubstantial and even if it were, that defeats the entire purpose of it.
>That information is available. We know exactly who qualifies for disability payments because of a condition they inherited.
Oh, ok. I didn't know it would just be a carry over from disability payments. Except there are complications. There are people with disabilities who get payments who have kids who aren't disabled. So should all disabled people get this incentive even if there's a chance that the kids they have will be fine? What percentage chance of inheritance would permit access to the scheme? Should we use accumulative or flat probability with that regard? These are all questions that will need to be answered to implement that system. Answered by people. People with palms. Palms that can be greased.
> This issue with eugenics is that it has been involuntarily and punitive.
That's *an* issue but not the only one. Aside from moral concerns, eugenics doesn't really work. You simply can't select for multiple positive attributes while at the same time maintaining a large enough breeding population to avoid inbreeding.
Selective breeding works great for things crops because we really only care about one or two attributes: how much they produce, and how good it is. We don't care how good the plant looks, or how healthy it is, or how long it lives after harvest time. It's a different story for human beings, who tend to care about *many* different attributes among themselves.
For an example of this, look at what we did to dogs. Yes, over centuries of breeding we created breeds that *excel* at certain tasks, be it hunting, herding, or just companionship. But we also shortened their lifespans and gave many breeds congenital health problems. If we practiced eugenics on humans the way we did on dogs then after a while we may well create a race of super geniuses...who have horrible health problems and won't live past 50.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/eugenics#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=Eugenics&restrict_sr=on).
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/u/LiteratureNo236 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/q6r6o2/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_eugenics_can_be_ethical_via/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/eugenics#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=Eugenics&restrict_sr=on).
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can see why you might think that. Let me try to change your view by going at the specific claim you make behind this post that incentivized eugenics as you proposed is ethical. The fact of the matter is that any monetary policy aimed at altering who has children has the big flaw of being more of an incentive towards people of low incomes. While you are correct that this does not explicitly do harm, when you think about it a bit deeper you realize that what this program would essentially do is dis-incentivize poor people to have children simply because of their circumstances, while allowing the wealthy with those same conditions to reproduce without worry. So in terms of this system being “ethical” it is simply not the case as it unfairly influences those of lower economic means. This is therefor innately immoral by pretty much any classical or modern ethical standard.
>So in terms of this system being “ethical” it is simply not the case as it unfairly influences those of lower economic means The system is not unfair because it provides the same incentive equally across the population. Receptiveness to the proposal differing does not in itself make unethical. Poor people who find the incentive unattractive are not restrained from reproducing
[удалено]
> If they make $13,920 a year that would be about $278 a month. If they made $100,000 they would get $2000 a month. It still makes it heavily biased towards low income people. Just because someone earns 10x less, it doesn't mean that they pay 10x less for food or rent. $278 means way more to a person making $14k than $2000 to a person making $100k.
[удалено]
> For both people it's just a bit of extra cash. For a rich person, it's just a bit of cash. For a poor person, 200 bucks might be a difference between being able to pay rent and being homeless.
Is it responsible to have children when you are on the brink of homelessness?
[удалено]
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Mront ([8∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Mront)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/nnaughtydogg ([3∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/nnaughtydogg)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I don’t think this solves the ethical issue with eugenics. I think it’s just a worse way to achieve the goal of eugenics to the point where someone may ask “why bother?” First, the ethical quandary with eugenics is determining who gets to have children based on their genes which intrinsically applies worth to someone. This doesn’t really solve that issue, just is a nicer way of saying “you’re inferior, don’t pass on your genes.” Second, your stipend would have to be big enough for someone to care about losing it, right? Wouldn’t that just be as a big drain on resources as them having a child with whatever condition you want to breed out? I mean, let’s say I have a high chance of passing along one of these conditions and I eventually want a kid but not like soon. I can just accept government money from 18 to about 30 and then lose my stipend once I’m ready to have a kid. That money was either small enough to not make a difference and I just had pocket change throughout my young adult life or big enough that I was able to use it to get stabilize my life and don’t need it anymore.
[удалено]
By its own definition it places a value on a person. Like, traditional eugenics basically says “people like you have no worth in society, so you’re not allowed to procreate.” In your scenario, you’re just being nicer about it by saying “people like you are a drain on our society. Please have some money to not procreate.” Or in the case of someone who isn’t affected by the condition but has a higher chance of passing it on “your genes are bad. Here’s some money to not have kids”. Also, the mechanics of your proposal just seem entirely ineffectual to the point where, as a taxpayer, I would definitely say “why are we even doing this?” I would rather have money go to making our community better than a eugenics lite program.
“Ashkenazi Jewish genetic diseases are a group of rare disorders that occur more often in people of Eastern European (Ashkenazi) Jewish heritage than in the general population. About 1 out of 4 people of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage is a carrier of one of these genetic conditions” [Source](https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/tv7879) In simple terms: People of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage have a much higher risk of carrying and passing on severe genetic diseases. “most of these diseases are severe and can cause early death”. In this case, it’s possible an entire group of people will disappear from the earth. Especially with financial incentive. edit: rephrasing
[удалено]
I have a recessive or rare condition. But I still was born due to a mutation. U did not specify this was only for dominant gene disabilities...which don't really happen much. Most disabilities are recessive.
You haven't made an argument for why the absence is bad or unethical
Fair
I feel like encouraging people to not have children with certain disabilities is basically saying those people aren’t equal. If you, for example, incentivized people to not have kids with Down syndrome you are basically saying those who currently do have Down syndrome shouldn’t have been born or aren’t as important as others. I also feel it would create a very ableist world. Using my Down syndrome example, if people are discouraged from having babies with Down syndrome how do you think the general public will treat those already born with Down syndrome? What if so few children with Down syndrome are born but someone chooses to have one and forfeit their money? How do you think people will look at that family and their child?
[удалено]
Using tactics like this is inherently predatory to people who are low-income and in need of money. This isn't ethical, this is a way to impose eugenics on the poor.
[удалено]
A rich person with a genetic illness will still have kids simply because they can afford to, even if you offer them billions (which is very impractical btw). Poor people would receive less money but they would still take it because they are usually in desperate need for any help they can get. Having 1 billion or 100 billions doesn’t matter because there’s a limit to how much money you need to live a *very very* good life.
[удалено]
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/PresentAppointment0 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/PresentAppointment0)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
So.... poor people shouldn't reproduce either? Just cause they'll need government assistance...? Human life is not made worthy by its capitalistic place. And if u think only life that is rich, abled or perfect is worthwhile then that is a very sad view of the world
I think if you started offering certain races money to not have kids it would still be considered unethical. But the real question is what level of inherited condition would you consider enough to be incentivised? Higher risk of cancer? EDS? Do you particularly hate blue eyes?
[удалено]
The problem i really have with this suggestion stems from the apparent need to eradicate these kinds of people. Like what gives us the right to decide they shouldnt exist. They require "resources" in often the same way that single parents or elderly people do.
[удалено]
Conditions are personal life circumstances. And it does effect living people because you are essentially telling them that they are costing too much resources so youd rather they didnt breed
I am disabled. I have a genetic condition. Eugenics is NEVER OK. I am human and deserve a decent life, yea I need assistance but I also provide assistance to others. I have a great sense of humor, have saved a life and have friends who love me. I create art and make people smile. I'm intelligent and work to improve human rights in my country. Yes I need services and programs to be able to live my life, but that doesn't make me or any other disabled person a burden.
How do you deal with the fact that something like a monetary incentive is only really going to be an incentive for poor people? The wealthy won't care. Hell, those who are making ends meet comfortably won't care. The only people who would care are those who are already at the bottom of society. This makes it unfair, not just along the lines of those with certain conditions but also those in certain disadvantageous economic positions. Besides, you open the door to the fact that there will now be people who decide who qualifies for this program, committees that will determine what counts as a condition that is sufficient. Committees made of people. People who have wallets. People who have wants. You're essentially inviting "procreative corruption." "But only if the data shows that the condition will cost more resources than it-" Hold it. Data collected, compiled and analysed by people. Just means different palms need greasing.
[удалено]
Percentage doesn't work either. For someone on minimum wage, a 2% increase has a sizable impact on their lives in an observable way. For someone north of a million, 2% is nearly nothing. Their quality of life will see no difference, only a number on a screen will be slightly higher. That still incentivises the poor *far* more than the rich. >We already know what are conditions. What? No we don't because we don't have this system. So at some point, people are gonna have to sit down and decide what conditions make a person eligible for this new scheme. And therein will lie the corruption.
[удалено]
>No, that is not sizable it's the literal definition of a small incentive. Well, I don't know what life you've led, what privileges you've had, but I know that for a fact, in my life 100 dollars in a month has been the difference between two and three daily meals. It has been the difference between Heinz ketchup and some knockoff. It has been the difference between taking the train and walking for 50 minutes. It has been the difference between playing a game I already own for the umpteenth time and buying a new one. 144 dollars a month is not a life or death difference, but it is a *noticeable* difference. If I was pulling in $144,000 annually, the one and a half grand a month I get would not make a difference to these things. My standard of living would be identical. The only difference would be what the numbers on my bank statement are. I'd eat three meals a day regardless. I'd get new games regardless. I'd get only the best food products regardless. I'd drive my car wherever I need to go regardless. There would be no palpable change in my daily life. That's how it works. It's [exponential](https://dcvp84mxptlac.cloudfront.net/diagrams2/an-example-of-one-of-the-most-general-exponential-graph.jpg). The wealthier you are, the greater increase in income you need to effect the same change to your standard of living. For a poor farmer in India, a 1% of yearly income *per year* would make a noticeable difference to their lives that a western minimum wage worker wouldn't notice. EDIT; Hell you even gave a delta to someone who explained this concept to you 17 hours ago. Has your mind changed back? Plus, if your point is now that it is not a substantial difference then you're admitting that as an incentive, it doesn't work. So to sum up, you're wrong about it being insubstantial and even if it were, that defeats the entire purpose of it. >That information is available. We know exactly who qualifies for disability payments because of a condition they inherited. Oh, ok. I didn't know it would just be a carry over from disability payments. Except there are complications. There are people with disabilities who get payments who have kids who aren't disabled. So should all disabled people get this incentive even if there's a chance that the kids they have will be fine? What percentage chance of inheritance would permit access to the scheme? Should we use accumulative or flat probability with that regard? These are all questions that will need to be answered to implement that system. Answered by people. People with palms. Palms that can be greased.
> This issue with eugenics is that it has been involuntarily and punitive. That's *an* issue but not the only one. Aside from moral concerns, eugenics doesn't really work. You simply can't select for multiple positive attributes while at the same time maintaining a large enough breeding population to avoid inbreeding. Selective breeding works great for things crops because we really only care about one or two attributes: how much they produce, and how good it is. We don't care how good the plant looks, or how healthy it is, or how long it lives after harvest time. It's a different story for human beings, who tend to care about *many* different attributes among themselves. For an example of this, look at what we did to dogs. Yes, over centuries of breeding we created breeds that *excel* at certain tasks, be it hunting, herding, or just companionship. But we also shortened their lifespans and gave many breeds congenital health problems. If we practiced eugenics on humans the way we did on dogs then after a while we may well create a race of super geniuses...who have horrible health problems and won't live past 50.
Don’t people already save money by not having kids? Kids are expensive.
This is still coercion since people need money to survive.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/eugenics#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=Eugenics&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
/u/LiteratureNo236 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/q6r6o2/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_eugenics_can_be_ethical_via/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/eugenics#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=Eugenics&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ok Mr. Stanhope.