Some possible arguments/examples for eugenics (population control policies)?

Lack of water resources can not sustain current population forecasts.

The very last war on this planet will be over H20.

I don't think it's actually ever been used successfully. The most noted example of course was Hitler and the Nazis. Some tactics were tried in the US in the last century, forced sterilization of the retarded, etc., but that is now considered barbaric. Then there is China's population control device, one child per couple, but that isn't really eugenics, since there is no qualification for the child.

But if you ignore humanity, there can be several arguments for eugenics as a form of birth control. First, mother nature is the most active user of this tactic. One out of every five pregnancies ends in miscarriage, some before the woman ever knows she is pregnant. For most, this is a result of some problem with the baby which causes it not to live. So children with a biological problem get wiped out. I can see direct eugenics taking place in the future of this country if costs and availability of medical care continue to fall apart. Why allow a birth that you know will either cost a prohibitive amount or use up valuable medical resources? That is to an extent a neutral eugenics program, existing across all racial boundaries and most economic ones. However, as in your first answer, some people will use eugenics to decrease the existence of groups of people whom they don't like or want around. Sterilization of one particular race or another or encouraging abortions in one race or class would be the tactic for that.

To this point, I've been talking about infant eugenics, but there are also people who believe in even more drastic eugenics. They would kill or allow to die an adult who presented a drain on the system. Think Soylent Green. The arguments for this are just as strong as the arguments for infant eugenics, all of which are disgusting.

Human nature being what it is, you aren't going to find any examples where this tactic worked. The people would rise up against it. It might be possible to enforce it in a country such as North Korea or Iran, but I still don't think it would last for long.

Edit: Yakuza, I hate to interfere with your bulldog like determination to hang on to your view of anti-Obama propaganda, but here is part of a statement Holdren made during his confirmation period. "This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization." Washington Times

Want an example of something similar to Eugenics?

Use the current health care debate. Don't address the issue of obesity in America, take any form of health care off the table. Make all emergency room visits and any kind of medical treatment contingent upon proving ones ability to pay. Throw in the current high unemployment and voila! "Unnatural selection".

What's left is a pampered group that couldn't possibly survive in the wild. Once the mass graves are dug and filled. Then there will be no job shortage, gas shortage etc. You get the idea .

On a biological level I'm not so sure there are any relevant arguments.

(I personally hold to survival of the fittest)

On a social level-My own thoughts are that anyone receiving public money for any reason must be on some form of birth control. Not necessarily for population control reasons but more for lessening the burden on the taxpayer by not adding to the mix. If the one person cannot support them self, then it stands to reason that they also cannot support a child.

that's the best I can come up with-hope it helps.

Well you can look at some of the history of the movement which aimed at sterilizing the mentally retarded, insane, and criminal groups. I'd suggest focusing on the Scandinavian countries and the United States, both of which had programs which routinely sterilized people in institutions.

From there you can make an argument of the costs of inherited diseases, such as hemophilia or tays sachs.

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;

• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;

• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;

• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Eugenics really isn't about population control. Its about creating better humans through selective breeding.

It could result in healthier, more intelligent and longer living people. It could weed out genetic defects and undesireable genetic traits. It could eliminate cancer.

There's a lot to be said for it. It just has a lot of ethical concerns.

First, you need to know that Sir Francis Galton's idea of Eugenics isn't about simple population control. It was about giving rewards to intelligent people for procreating, while trying to punish the less intelligent for procreating, so that we would have a more intelligent society.

I'm sure you can come up with "pros" for eugenics (at least according to its proponents.)

Use your imagination.

THE GREATER GOOD.

get rid of all those that cannot work.

get rid of all those with genetic defects

get rid of all those that are different

you might as well slap a swastika to the top of the essay.