3rd Hour - Eugenics

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  Admin on Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:56 am

Access the Eugenics Article for this week's discussion at http://hstrial-ahancock2.homestead.com/Favorites.html . After reading the article, answer BOTH of the questions below:

1. After reading this article, how do you feel about the topic of eugenics? What emotions did you experience reading this article? Explain.

2. This article argues FOR eugenics. Find one or two weaknesses in the article and and argue AGAINST eugenics.

INITIAL POST - Due Wednesday, March 30 at 11:59 pm
RESPONSE POSTS (to at least 2 of your classmates) - Due Friday, April 1 at 11:59 pm

Admin
Admin

Posts : 46
Join date : 2010-08-15

View user profile http://hancockhonorsbio.free-forums.mobi

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  tw33tybirdn3rd on Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:21 pm

1. After reading this article, how do you feel about the topic of eugenics? What emotions did you experience reading this article? Explain.
I feel that eugenics is not really something that we need, but I really don’t feel anything I just think it is unnecessary.

2. This article argues FOR eugenics. Find one or two weaknesses in the article and and argue AGAINST eugenics.

One reason would be the birth defect
Another would be that there would be unwanted traits

tw33tybirdn3rd

Posts : 46
Join date : 2010-08-19
Age : 22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Eugenics

Post  tweetywizard on Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:13 pm

1. After reading this article, how do you feel about the topic of eugenics? What emotions did you experience reading this article? Explain.
-I feel that eugenics is not necessary because if everyone is just like their parents, how will we as a civilization grow to keep providing for our future generations. But they were right about how the intelligence of each new generation is decreasing so for the sack of my furture grand children a part of me wants the eugenics.

2. This article argues FOR eugenics. Find one or two weaknesses in the article and and argue AGAINST eugenics.
-If we all believe in superstitions and that suppositely hurt us, somone in these past generations made it up and that means we were using their intelligence, right? And if thats the case then eugenics has nothing to do with what we believe in.
-EUgenics takes away the freedom of people who have genetic defects because just like any other human being, people who have those defects should be discouraged to have children just because they are not the same as everyone else. In the end they are still human beings.


tweetywizard

Posts : 43
Join date : 2010-08-23
Age : 22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  Richiee12 on Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:47 pm

1. After reading this article, how do you feel about the topic of eugenics? What emotions did you experience reading this article? Explain.

In the article it states civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization, I believe this is solely true. If you think about it once intelligence stops we will not advance any further. If no one is smart enough then we'll be at the same stage we're in right now. Civilization and the community stops as a whole. There will be no further studies then the cure for cancer and HIV/AIDS will definitely not be discovered. The economy goes downhill, the government goes down, and the country follows. Education can take us a LONG way. Its essential to life and everything in it. There's a lot in this article I do agree on though.

2. This article argues FOR eugenics. Find one or two weaknesses in the article and and argue AGAINST eugenics.

In the article it states that at the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children. This is not true for the most part. I've known people who were developmentally disabled to have some of the brightest children. Just because you're less intelligent doesn't mean your children will be too. Being part of the least-intelligent people is a choice not a hereditary. It all depends on what you do. The amount of work you put in is the amount of work you receive back. Hard work pays off and effort adds to it.
The article also states that "...twins reared apart are as similar as identical twins reared together by the time they're adults. They also resemble one another strikingly in their mannerisms, the way they laugh, their likes and dislikes, phobias, temperament, sexual preference..." Sexual preference has no effect on the other twin. Just because one twin is homosexual doesn't mean the other twin will be. Twins are usually exact opposites. I know not one set of twins that are exactly alike. Most twins like different things and dislike different things. Usually what one dislikes the other loves. There's no two people in the world completely alike, twins or not.

Richiee12

Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  aMAIZEing94 on Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:07 am

1. After reading this article, how do you feel about the topic of eugenics? What emotions did you experience reading this article? Explain.
I do not know what to feel about eugenics. While reading the article, I felt surprised at times and I did agree with some of the points that were made. I realize that future generations may benefit from it and that it may also save the world from a complete drop in intelligence. However, I believe that telling people whether they can or cannot reproduce is immoral, unjust and a violation of human rights. The author states that egalitarianism is a superstition and because people are not equal, those who are at the bottom of society should not so many children. That may be true but EVERYONE should have the right to the natural human process of reproduction if physically possible. Maybe it is okay to limit the amount of kids that people have, just as long as they do not say that they can not have children at all.

2. This article argues FOR eugenics. Find one or two weaknesses in the article and and argue AGAINST eugenics.
A weakness in the article that argues against eugenics is that it says that SOME studies showed there was no correlation between adult IQ and the number of offspring reported. This shows that there is a possiblity that an equal amount of intelligences are being brought into the world (even if they are somehow dropping). Maybe we can work towards raising IQs (as a whole) instead of limiting babies with lower ones. The author says, "By the middle of the century it had become apparent that educated people were having fewer children than the uneducated." Maybe we can work on educating the uneducated first.

aMAIZEing94

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  gamerdude94 on Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:47 pm

1. I feel that eugenics is a little unethical. It seems kind of barbaric to tell people they cant have kids because their IQ isnt high enough. People have already tried to make a better world by eliminating the "unwanted". In the united states in the 40's people with autism or another mental disorder were castrated so they couldnt have kids. I dont think higher up people on the socioeconomic ladder should get to decide who gets to reproduce based on intelligence.

2. Eugenics may be argued for in many cases but it has some contradictory points. One of the main points of the article is that people with a low IQ have kids with a low IQ. I see many peple whose parents didnt even graduate highschool become engineers or scientists. Another argument against the case of eugenics is the civilization ploy. It states that the smarter the people in civilization the longer it will form. How then do you explain the natives of new guinea. They only have weapons to hunt and have had a civilization for hundreds of years. Case in point eugenics may make some flashy arguments but it is unjust and frankly idiotic to follow.

gamerdude94

Posts : 61
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Eugenics

Post  penguin94 on Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:34 pm

Admin wrote:Access the Eugenics Article for this week's discussion at http://hstrial-ahancock2.homestead.com/Favorites.html . After reading the article, answer BOTH of the questions below:

1. After reading this article, how do you feel about the topic of eugenics? What emotions did you experience reading this article? Explain.I feel that Eugenics is partially correct. I believe that the environment, as well as hereditary genes, play a part in the development of a person intellectually, socially, physically, etc. However, I do not believe that if a intellectually brilliant person has children with another person "equal to" their brilliance will guarentee their children to be just as brilliant as the parents. Eugenics is a "game of chance". I felt in my readings that the author was correct in that civilization depends on intelligence. Civilization cannot continue to grow and develop and improve without the population developing intellectually.
2. This article argues FOR eugenics. Find one or two weaknesses in the article and argue AGAINST eugenics.The author says in the third paragraph of the fourth topic that there is not any precise data for the IQ tests for the 19th century and then estimates them. By doing this, the author make me think that he may be lying. Also, the writer is constantly mocking the Eglatarianist's attempts to help people academically by providing better environments to live in. The writer laughs at them and wonders why they don't do something more. Well, what more can they do? You cannot force someone to make correct choices or live a certain way or raise their kids perfectly, our society and government does not allow that.
INITIAL POST - Due Wednesday, March 30 at 11:59 pm
RESPONSE POSTS (to at least 2 of your classmates) - Due Friday, April 1 at 11:59 pm

penguin94

Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-08-19
Age : 22
Location : everywhere :)

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  iluvowls on Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:05 pm

I do no think eugenics is a good thing because i believe in letting the world go on naturally. I think if we mess with human nature it will bite us in the but and we have to pay horrible consequences. I think that people with lower IQ's are put on the Earth for a reason just like everything else.

The artical says eugenics is a good thing but if society thinks its good, why are they so concentrated on making everyone seem so equal regardless of who they are? it seems a bit hypocricial to me. I think if the people who agree with eugenics had lower IQ's they would be very upset if they were told they couldnt have children. I also think that if their children had low IQ's they would still want them to have kids too so that there could be grandkids. It seems like a pretty stupid idea to me.

iluvowls

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Eugenics

Post  Suga-Mama on Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:32 pm

After reading this article, i don't really believe eugenics is moral. How can you legally prevent people from having children based on an IQ score? It doesnt seen fair at all. Just because someone is not as smart as the other person does not mean that they are guarenteed to have a child with a low IQ score. I don't believe that at all because it is not just your heritage that determines your IQ. I think that it also has a lot to do with the environment you were raised in. If someone was raised in a poor environment with out an education, of course their intelligence will be lower because no one was there to teach them the stuff they quiz you on on IQ test. The world is split up into so many different factions that it is just too hard to place a real statistic on IQ based on parents and enviornment alone. There may be geniuses out there, they just havent had the opportunity to discover it yet.

Second, a weakness in the article is that when civilization was created it came from those few genius people that come along every once in a while. If you notice, civilization developed slowly. It did not just happen. There were geniuses who would appear every now and again and they would give the world a littel push in a smarter direction. I think that geniuses like einstein or plato, are rare, so rare that a dumber world wouldn't even affect the amount of occurances in that type of genius.

Suga-Mama

Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  krazedxasylum on Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:39 pm

After reading the article, i completely agree that without intelligence, a civilization cannot prosper. With intelligence comes advancements, innovations, and new ideas which will help grow, stabilize and maintain a society. Also, without knowledge, we will completely revert society to that of the hunter-gathers. These are nomadic people who hunt and gather food and whose goal is to eat and live another day. This is what would come without intelligence for a society, and yes i agree with the article for that. On the other hand, i disagree with the argument for Eugenics by saying that the non-intelligent people are to not reproduce. the article stated that since non-intelligent people are reproducing and producing the most offspring, that society and the world is being set up for ultimate failure as the world is getting dumber. This i believe is not a way to solve the problem. One, i think it is in-human to tell one that they are not allowed to reproduce, which is a natural bodily function. A way to possibly "solve" the problem is to stricken education or put restrictions on all such things that distract us from learning. as maybe t.v is regulated to only run for a certain amount of hours a day or the life of a video game system is shorter therefore causing a person to find something else to do with their time which in turn can result in more reading and studying.

krazedxasylum

Posts : 41
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  Yofeetstink on Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:46 pm

1. I do no agree with eugenics because it says that civilization cannot exist without technology and it used to and still can and as i see it, it is getting worse the more technology we get. I also disagree with the statement made the intelligent people are born from other intelligent people.


2. In the article it states that the unintelligent people are having more babies and are producing unintelligent offspring but ive seen plenty of people that are intelligent come from parents that were not so bright.

Yofeetstink

Posts : 37
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  calientelabios234 on Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:22 am

1. After reading this article, how do you feel about the topic of eugenics? What emotions did you experience reading this article? Explain.
I am not sure on how I feel about Eugenics...the topic is still a little bit unclear to me. I have mixed emotions about it. There are some things I agree with on the topic and some things actually were appalling.

2. This article argues FOR eugenics. Find one or two weaknesses in the article and and argue AGAINST eugenics.
I did not like how he said intelligence is hereditary and but there are many people who are intelligent and their parents were not that smart or there some kids who are dumb and their parents are super geniuses.

calientelabios234

Posts : 51
Join date : 2010-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  tweetywizard on Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:47 am

aMAIZEing94 wrote: However, I believe that telling people whether they can or cannot reproduce is immoral, unjust and a violation of human rights.

I totally agree with you on what you are saying because if you tell someone they cannot reproduce the child that they could produce could know the cure or the answer to some of our biggest problems that we have in the world!!

tweetywizard

Posts : 43
Join date : 2010-08-23
Age : 22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  tweetywizard on Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:52 am

iluvowls wrote: I think if the people who agree with eugenics had lower IQ's they would be very upset if they were told they couldnt have children. I also think that if their children had low IQ's they would still want them to have kids too so that there could be grandkids. It seems like a pretty stupid idea to me.

I agree with you on this because it seems as if eveyone is thinking about the now and the future. People have to not just think about themselves just because of their IQ's. They have to be considerate!!

tweetywizard

Posts : 43
Join date : 2010-08-23
Age : 22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  iluvowls on Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:49 pm

[quote="gamerdude94"]1. I feel that eugenics is a little unethical. It seems kind of barbaric to tell people they cant have kids because their IQ isnt high enough. People have already tried to make a better world by eliminating the "unwanted". In the united states in the 40's people with autism or another mental disorder were castrated so they couldnt have kids. I dont think higher up people on the socioeconomic ladder should get to decide who gets to reproduce based on intelligence.
quote]



I totally agree that it is unethical. i would be very upset if i was told that i could never have a child because i really look forward to the day that i do. If someone told me that i couldnt have a kid because i wasnt smart enough i would feel like all of my rights were taken away and that i no longer had the liberty that america is known for.

iluvowls

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  iluvowls on Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:52 pm

calientelabios234 wrote:
I did not like how he said intelligence is hereditary and but there are many people who are intelligent and their parents were not that smart or there some kids who are dumb and their parents are super geniuses.


I agree with this. my dad is a genius at math but i am totally cluless when it comes to math. I dont think that everything about who we are necessarily comes from our parents and to assume that someone will have a child that is a certain just because you are that way is obsurd.

iluvowls

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  gamerdude94 on Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:49 pm

iluvowls wrote:I do no think eugenics is a good thing because i believe in letting the world go on naturally. I think if we mess with human nature it will bite us in the but and we have to pay horrible consequences. I think that people with lower IQ's are put on the Earth for a reason just like everything else.

The artical says eugenics is a good thing but if society thinks its good, why are they so concentrated on making everyone seem so equal regardless of who they are? it seems a bit hypocricial to me. I think if the people who agree with eugenics had lower IQ's they would be very upset if they were told they couldnt have children. I also think that if their children had low IQ's they would still want them to have kids too so that there could be grandkids. It seems like a pretty stupid idea to me.

Ya I agree. If they make everyone have the same IQ then who is special. You're not really extraordinary or brilliant if you are the same as everyone else

gamerdude94

Posts : 61
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  gamerdude94 on Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:50 pm

calientelabios234 wrote:

2. This article argues FOR eugenics. Find one or two weaknesses in the article and and argue AGAINST eugenics.
I did not like how he said intelligence is hereditary and but there are many people who are intelligent and their parents were not that smart or there some kids who are dumb and their parents are super geniuses.

I agree. I think its all dependent on how you are raised or your perseverance and motivation that make up your intelligence.

gamerdude94

Posts : 61
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  Suga-Mama on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:30 pm

calientelabios234 wrote:1. After reading this article, how do you feel about the topic of eugenics? What emotions did you experience reading this article? Explain.
I am not sure on how I feel about Eugenics...the topic is still a little bit unclear to me. I have mixed emotions about it. There are some things I agree with on the topic and some things actually were appalling.

2. This article argues FOR eugenics. Find one or two weaknesses in the article and and argue AGAINST eugenics.
I did not like how he said intelligence is hereditary and but there are many people who are intelligent and their parents were not that smart or there some kids who are dumb and their parents are super geniuses.

I agree. Intelligence can't only be determined by heriditary genes, it is a combination of your learning enviroment, discipline, and genes. I believe anyone can be a genius if put in the right learning and living conditions.

Suga-Mama

Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  Suga-Mama on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:33 pm

[quote="gamerdude94"]1. I feel that eugenics is a little unethical. It seems kind of barbaric to tell people they cant have kids because their IQ isnt high enough. People have already tried to make a better world by eliminating the "unwanted". In the united states in the 40's people with autism or another mental disorder were castrated so they couldnt have kids. I dont think higher up people on the socioeconomic ladder should get to decide who gets to reproduce based on intelligence.

I agree, however, it doesn't surprise me that the government would come up with something like this. Everyone should have the freedom to reproduce, but it is up to that person to make that decision, not the government.

Suga-Mama

Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  Yofeetstink on Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:02 pm

tweetywizard wrote:1. After reading this article, how do you feel about the topic of eugenics? What emotions did you experience reading this article? Explain.
-I feel that eugenics is not necessary because if everyone is just like their parents, how will we as a civilization grow to keep providing for our future generations. But they were right about how the intelligence of each new generation is decreasing so for the sack of my furture grand children a part of me wants the eugenics.

2. This article argues FOR eugenics. Find one or two weaknesses in the article and and argue AGAINST eugenics.
-If we all believe in superstitions and that suppositely hurt us, somone in these past generations made it up and that means we were using their intelligence, right? And if thats the case then eugenics has nothing to do with what we believe in.
-EUgenics takes away the freedom of people who have genetic defects because just like any other human being, people who have those defects should be discouraged to have children just because they are not the same as everyone else. In the end they are still human beings.


I personally dont think the intelligence of each generation is decreasing I think that there are smarter people in each generation especially in some foreign areas.

Yofeetstink

Posts : 37
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  Yofeetstink on Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:04 pm

calientelabios234 wrote:1. After reading this article, how do you feel about the topic of eugenics? What emotions did you experience reading this article? Explain.
I am not sure on how I feel about Eugenics...the topic is still a little bit unclear to me. I have mixed emotions about it. There are some things I agree with on the topic and some things actually were appalling.

2. This article argues FOR eugenics. Find one or two weaknesses in the article and and argue AGAINST eugenics.
I did not like how he said intelligence is hereditary and but there are many people who are intelligent and their parents were not that smart or there some kids who are dumb and their parents are super geniuses.

I totally agree with you i think that intelligence has nothing to do with out parents because ive seen exactly what you just mentioned smart folk come from not so smart folk.

Yofeetstink

Posts : 37
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  penguin94 on Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:59 pm

Richiee12 wrote: In the article it states that at the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children. This is not true for the most part. I've known people who were developmentally disabled to have some of the brightest children. Just because you're less intelligent doesn't mean your children will be too. Being part of the least-intelligent people is a choice not a hereditary. It all depends on what you do. The amount of work you put in is the amount of work you receive back. Hard work pays off and effort adds to it.
The article also states that "...twins reared apart are as similar as identical twins reared together by the time they're adults. They also resemble one another strikingly in their mannerisms, the way they laugh, their likes and dislikes, phobias, temperament, sexual preference..." Sexual preference has no effect on the other twin. Just because one twin is homosexual doesn't mean the other twin will be. Twins are usually exact opposites. I know not one set of twins that are exactly alike. Most twins like different things and dislike different things. Usually what one dislikes the other loves. There's no two people in the world completely alike, twins or not.
I agree. Your intelligence is mainly dependent upon the amount of work you put in. some people come from the roughest backgrounds and because they are willing to work at it, they may become the next accepted student at Harvard.
I also agree that no one is completely alike. I know several sets of twins and though they may look alike, they do not share many similar tastes in hardly anything.

penguin94

Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-08-19
Age : 22
Location : everywhere :)

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  penguin94 on Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:04 am

iluvowls wrote:
The artical says eugenics is a good thing but if society thinks its good, why are they so concentrated on making everyone seem so equal regardless of who they are? it seems a bit hypocricial to me. I think if the people who agree with eugenics had lower IQ's they would be very upset if they were told they couldnt have children. I also think that if their children had low IQ's they would still want them to have kids too so that there could be grandkids. It seems like a pretty stupid idea to me.
Good point. i agree with you when you said that people still fight against eugenics even though it is this "great" thing. when you step back and look at it though, you may find that it is not entirely what you signed up for. regarding IQs however, i do not believe that intelligence is hereditary. i believe that intelligence depends on how you are taught to learn and from watching your parents, or guardians as the case may be, and copying them.

penguin94

Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-08-19
Age : 22
Location : everywhere :)

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  calientelabios234 on Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:13 am

Suga-Mama wrote:After reading this article, i don't really believe eugenics is moral. How can you legally prevent people from having children based on an IQ score? It doesnt seen fair at all. Just because someone is not as smart as the other person does not mean that they are guarenteed to have a child with a low IQ score. I don't believe that at all because it is not just your heritage that determines your IQ. I think that it also has a lot to do with the environment you were raised in. If someone was raised in a poor environment with out an education, of course their intelligence will be lower because no one was there to teach them the stuff they quiz you on on IQ test. The world is split up into so many different factions that it is just too hard to place a real statistic on IQ based on parents and enviornment alone. There may be geniuses out there, they just havent had the opportunity to discover it yet.

Second, a weakness in the article is that when civilization was created it came from those few genius people that come along every once in a while. If you notice, civilization developed slowly. It did not just happen. There were geniuses who would appear every now and again and they would give the world a littel push in a smarter direction. I think that geniuses like einstein or plato, are rare, so rare that a dumber world wouldn't even affect the amount of occurances in that type of genius.


I agree that eugenics is immoral because it is not fair to limit people from having children, if children make them happy then who is to say that they can not have kids because they are not as smart. And if someone was raised in a poor environment it does not mean that they are dumb but if they do not have the resources to unlock their intelligence then that does not apply.

calientelabios234

Posts : 51
Join date : 2010-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Eugenics

Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:43 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum