Is Nazism a Statistically Relevant/Significant Concern in the Modern World?

Is Nazism a Statistically Relevant/Significant Concern in the Modern World?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • No

    Votes: 2 28.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Total voters
    7
Dec 2006
25,682
10,683
New Haven, CT
#11
We already test inrauterine fetuses for flaws and diseases, allowing mothers to abort fetuses that will mature into flawed babies.

I don't see how eugenics is that far down the line.

... of course, we already discriminate against minorities, so the Nazis are sufficiently covered there - they just have to amp it up a little
 
Nov 2012
5,668
3,384
Kekistan
#12
Geneticist Kari Stefansson is the founder of deCODE Genetics, a company that has studied nearly the entire Icelandic population's genomes. He has a unique perspective on the advancement of medical technology. "My understanding is that we have basically eradicated, almost, Down syndrome from our society -- that there is hardly ever a child with Down syndrome in Iceland anymore," he said.

Quijano asked Stefansson, "What does the 100 percent termination rate, you think, reflect about Icelandic society?"

"It reflects a relatively heavy-handed genetic counseling," he said. "And I don't think that heavy-handed genetic counseling is desirable. … You're having impact on decisions that are not medical, in a way."

Stefansson noted, "I don't think there's anything wrong with aspiring to have healthy children, but how far we should go in seeking those goals is a fairly complicated decision."
read more at
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/
 
Oct 2010
64,295
25,308
Colorado
#14
"Eugenics" as promoted in the past is not a big threat. But, eugenics as in modifying DNA, and the big one, melding technology and flesh, is poised to become huge.

Call me crazy, but the end game here looks to me to be the emergence of silicon-based life and a competition between it and carbon-based life.

Given our unwillingness to be stewards of our biosphere, I'd say the odds are on the silicon-based side's success.
 
Likes: 2 people
Dec 2017
1,646
791
USA
#15
Do I believe it? No. I know it. I've been arguing with people on these discussion boards over their blatant support of the practice. Mainstream does not address it.
Can you please point me to these discussion boards as I am wholly ignorant of what you a referring to (in statistically relevant/significant numbers, that is--not a fringe/aberration quack here & there)?
 
Last edited:
Dec 2017
1,646
791
USA
#16
No, but I think the concept of eugenics will be an elephant in the room that no one will want to talk about, but as genetic research becomes more and more advanced it will become a very large elephant indeed.
Are you referring to Genetic Engineering? I view that as an issue perpendicular to the one we are discussing here (although I would be very happy to explore that topic as well)
 
Dec 2017
1,646
791
USA
#17
"Eugenics" as promoted in the past is not a big threat. But, eugenics as in modifying DNA, and the big one, melding technology and flesh, is poised to become huge.

Call me crazy, but the end game here looks to me to be the emergence of silicon-based life and a competition between it and carbon-based life.

Given our unwillingness to be stewards of our biosphere, I'd say the odds are on the silicon-based side's success.
@imaginethat

Thanks for your response.

Now, I view the sort of futuristic (although very plausible) Genetic Engineering you are referring to as potentially highly problematic from a number of angles as well--although I don't view it as particularly relevant to the matter of "Nazism" that is the intended purpose of this Thread (even though they do connect/cross paths at a point)
 
Apr 2013
34,969
23,665
Left coast
#18
"Eugenics" as promoted in the past is not a big threat. But, eugenics as in modifying DNA, and the big one, melding technology and flesh, is poised to become huge.

Call me crazy, but the end game here looks to me to be the emergence of silicon-based life and a competition between it and carbon-based life.

Given our unwillingness to be stewards of our biosphere, I'd say the odds are on the silicon-based side's success.
Having worked for a research group that studied silicon in great depth, I have to disagree. Silicon will not form multiple bonds so any analogy to life as we know it but viable at high temps is impossible.

And now for something completely different on the other hand ...
 
Oct 2010
64,295
25,308
Colorado
#19
@imaginethat

Thanks for your response.

Now, I view the sort of futuristic (although very plausible) Genetic Engineering you are referring to as potentially highly problematic from a number of angles as well--although I don't view it as particularly relevant to the matter of "Nazism" that is the intended purpose of this Thread (even though they do connect/cross paths at a point)
My bad. It was off topic. My apology to you.
 
Likes: 1 person
Oct 2010
64,295
25,308
Colorado
#20
Having worked for a research group that studied silicon in great depth, I have to disagree. Silicon will not form multiple bonds so any analogy to life as we know it but viable at high temps is impossible.

And now for something completely different on the other hand ...
I'm talking silicon-based life as in self-conscious, self-replicating, self-designing computers/robots. I wasn't clear.

The situation Musk, Gates, and Hawking keep pointing out.
 
Likes: 1 person

Similar Discussions