Eugenics

[Guile]

Well it's come around again, the dreaded abortion thread...

Figure it's about time to try and bring up Eugenics again!



Now, might I suggest we apply optional Eugenics, and in vitro fertilization. First, we give care to people with severe inheritable diseases, on the condition that they have no children, and are sterilized. This way we can eliminate direct genetic disease. Then we begin to focus on those with prospensenity for disease, and give them tax deductions and other bonuses if they agree to sterilization. If we were to, theoretically, stop the bottom 5% of every generation from breeding, we could create a far better society, one free from the confines of debilitating genetic diseases. Imagine the day when no child has to be born with cystic fibrosis, get cancer at a young age, and suffer through painful treatment, only to pass at a young age.

We would want to prevent, the genetically inferior from procreating, thereby preserving the literal fabric of the human race, everything we can and will amount to, our physical limits. We do not want to destroy our gene pool by letting these influences continue. It is the law of nature that the weak and unfit die, so that the fit and strong live, humans are not above this most basic law.

At the same time, we put money towards researching more into designer babies, and eventually subsidize free, and quick, visits to geneticists/gynecologists to allow every (responsible) parent to have a good, healthy, child. If we were somehow able to prevent people from procreating naturally, then we would also be able to limit population growth, and halt the overpopulation epidemic that causes so much pollution and starvation across the globe.


"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." - Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood



“But excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. ”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man


"Eugenics is an inherently American ideal, that which a man harboring no more then his own being, free of mind, can seize the opportunity thrust upon him, and through his choice of mate alone, can defend mankind from destruction." - Guile

[chickenonsteroids]

I don't see it ever happening, nor do I think it should really.

As soon as the government in power has the ability to just stop you from reproducing ten they'll ve voted out almost instantly. Even if it was voluntary I reckon.

I'd much prefer the empowerment of women in poorer countries so they aren't used as breeding grounds in patriachal society.

Education > eugenics

[Guile]

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

I don't see it ever happening, nor do I think it should really.

As soon as the government in power has the ability to just stop you from reproducing ten they'll ve voted out almost instantly. Even if it was voluntary I reckon.

I'd much prefer the empowerment of women in poorer countries so they aren't used as breeding grounds in patriachal society.

Education > eugenics

Although that is a start, the real issue is in the genetic inequality of people, even in our developed society (and I would argue it is even more of a problem here). Empowering women to stop reproducing doesn't help the problem that it's not the act of reproduction that destroys humanity, but the ones who are reproducing. In less developed societies, the genetically inferior, those with deformities, and other degenerates often die at a young age, preventing them from reproducing. I would argue that the core of the problem is in Western Societies, where someone can have three children with Down Syndrome, Autism, and such, and yet they continue to reproduce, each time, polluting the human gene pool with more degenerations.

[chickenonsteroids]

Originally Posted by Guile

Although that is a start, the real issue is in the genetic inequality of people, even in our developed society (and I would argue it is even more of a problem here). Empowering women to stop reproducing doesn't help the problem that it's not the act of reproduction that destroys humanity, but the ones who are reproducing. In less developed societies, the genetically inferior, those with deformities, and other degenerates often die at a young age, preventing them from reproducing. I would argue that the core of the problem is in Western Societies, where someone can have three children with Down Syndrome, Autism, and such, and yet they continue to reproduce, each time, polluting the human gene pool with more degenerations.

Do you see a practical way in letting the nation know that "your child isn't as good as mine! Stop reproducing!"? - and that's just telling them, not actually enforcing eugenics.

I don't. People get really sensitive about the value of their lives (and rightly so) so they'd probably tell you to screw yourself. but in a more vulgar fashion

I think the actual problem is not genetics but (going back to my last point) excessive reproduction in poorer countries. Many of them may die but they still end up with much bigger families that those in the west. And it could be down to a culture thing also. You could even educate those about the problem in the west and let them take the decision into their own hands. A lot of people would think that overcrowding isn't really a problem, it's the distribution of land and efficiency of resources that is.

[Bibliophile]

So who wouldn't be able to breed, and what about specific negative personality traits? I completely disagree with eugenics, it goes against human rights.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

Do you see a practical way in letting the nation know that "your child isn't as good as mine! Stop reproducing!"? - and that's just telling them, not actually enforcing eugenics.

I don't. People get really sensitive about the value of their lives (and rightly so) so they'd probably tell you to screw yourself. but in a more vulgar fashion

I think the actual problem is not genetics but (going back to my last point) excessive reproduction in poorer countries. Many of them may die but they still end up with much bigger families that those in the west. And it could be down to a culture thing also. You could even educate those about the problem in the west and let them take the decision into their own hands. A lot of people would think that overcrowding isn't really a problem, it's the distribution of land and efficiency of resources that is.

We could always enforce laws, we're talking about the future of the human race as a whole.

But yet again, look at America, only America (or any other developed Western Nation). Overpopulation because of family size isn't the issue, it's because of genetic and mental diseases.

Originally Posted by Bibliophile

So who wouldn't be able to breed, and what about specific negative personality traits? I completely disagree with eugenics, it goes against human rights.

Human rights are an imaginary concept created to justify self-righteous moral crusades. There is no such thing as inborn human rights. Also, those with severe hereditary disease, physical and mental defects, etc.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

I'm a bit confused on what you're suggesting because in your response to chickenonsteriods, you suddenly included mental illness, which is different from genetic disease. So, which is it: only genetic disease, only mental illness, or both? If you say the last two, then you're on a slippery slope because you have to now justify your reasoning, which is a monumental task with currently unknown answers. As for genetic diseases, it's very subjective because they can be beneficial, harmful or unknown. The issue I see is how do you define which ones are to be removed. Keep in mind, genetic variety in humans is inevitable thus far, so there will still be genetic diseases that arise. You're taking a very skewed look at the "natural law" of having weak die and strong survive. That's something a high-school biology course would teach, however, look around, weak still survive because they adapt and evolve. It's not simply about over-powering the strong, which I think is the view you're taking. Last but not least, the biggest stumbling block: genetic mutations not brought on by parents who display and/or have the genotypes for a particular disease. Your attempt is to eradicate these parents, however, that's not always possible and testing at birth or while still in the womb isn't available for all genetic diseases, especially rarer ones. In other words, there's going to be a source that cannot be eradicated, at least not yet.

My view on this depends on your answers to these questions and issues I posed.

[Bibliophile]

Originally Posted by OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!

I'm a bit confused on what you're suggesting because in your response to chickenonsteriods, you suddenly included mental illness, which is different from genetic disease. So, which is it: only genetic disease, only mental illness, or both? If you say the last two, then you're on a slippery slope because you have to now justify your reasoning, which is a monumental task with currently unknown answers. As for genetic diseases, it's very subjective because they can be beneficial, harmful or unknown. The issue I see is how do you define which ones are to be removed. Keep in mind, genetic variety in humans is inevitable thus far, so there will still be genetic diseases that arise. You're taking a very skewed look at the "natural law" of having weak die and strong survive. That's something a high-school biology course would teach, however, look around, weak still survive because they adapt and evolve. It's not simply about over-powering the strong, which I think is the view you're taking. Last but not least, the biggest stumbling block: genetic mutations not brought on by parents who display and/or have the genotypes for a particular disease. Your attempt is to eradicate these parents, however, that's not always possible and testing at birth or while still in the womb isn't available for all genetic diseases, especially rarer ones. In other words, there's going to be a source that cannot be eradicated, at least not yet.

My view on this depends on your answers to these questions and issues I posed.

See bold sentences. Which.

Also as I asked in my last post, what about negative personality traits? Can they stay? Who, in your opinion, should actually be able to reproduce?

[dr2005]

Not this again...

OMFG!You'reActuallySmart! already covered a number of points I was going to make, but my biggest objection is that eugenics is pseudoscience masquerading as legitimate, objective, empirical theory. None of the arguments presented in the time I have been aware of the subject (which is getting on for around a decade now) has changed this. As such, I believe it should be treated the same way as other forms of pseudoscience and should certainly be kept as far away from social policy as humanly possible.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!

I'm a bit confused on what you're suggesting because in your response to chickenonsteriods, you suddenly included mental illness, which is different from genetic disease. So, which is it: only genetic disease, only mental illness, or both? If you say the last two, then you're on a slippery slope because you have to now justify your reasoning, which is a monumental task with currently unknown answers. As for genetic diseases, it's very subjective because they can be beneficial, harmful or unknown. The issue I see is how do you define which ones are to be removed. Keep in mind, genetic variety in humans is inevitable thus far, so there will still be genetic diseases that arise. You're taking a very skewed look at the "natural law" of having weak die and strong survive. That's something a high-school biology course would teach, however, look around, weak still survive because they adapt and evolve. It's not simply about over-powering the strong, which I think is the view you're taking. Last but not least, the biggest stumbling block: genetic mutations not brought on by parents who display and/or have the genotypes for a particular disease. Your attempt is to eradicate these parents, however, that's not always possible and testing at birth or while still in the womb isn't available for all genetic diseases, especially rarer ones. In other words, there's going to be a source that cannot be eradicated, at least not yet.

My view on this depends on your answers to these questions and issues I posed.

I am speaking of inheritable mental illnesses, or those which can be linked to genetic traits.

I only mentioned mental, because I do not want this to be focused on simply physical appearance (such as height or hair color), whereas mental capacity is far more important.

While genetic variation is good, as it prevents a single disease from wiping out a population, I would hardly argue that Cystic Fibrosis is beneficial, and while some things may have no real effect, say a large "port wine stain" (I don't actually know if that is genetic?), and it is true, some diseases may have some benefit, look at Malaria and blood diseases in Africa. Overall though, I think we can agree that there are certain things that are certainly not beneficial, or at least the benefit is far surpassed by the debilitating effects of the disease itself. I don't want to see someone born with Cystic Fibrosis, a child who did nothing wrong, the parents need to take responsibility for their genetic conditions, and make intelligent, and with programs, informed, decisions about their own reproductive habits.

Originally Posted by Bibliophile

Also as I asked in my last post, what about negative personality traits? Can they stay? Who, in your opinion, should actually be able to reproduce?

Now that's a tricky question. As of now we're still researching the links between personality traits and genetics, so I can't give a definitive answer until we have amassed enough evidence.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Not this again...

OMFG!You'reActuallySmart! already covered a number of points I was going to make, but my biggest objection is that eugenics is pseudoscience masquerading as legitimate, objective, empirical theory. None of the arguments presented in the time I have been aware of the subject (which is getting on for around a decade now) has changed this. As such, I believe it should be treated the same way as other forms of pseudoscience and should certainly be kept as far away from social policy as humanly possible.

Time and time again, the laws of natural selection have been proven, and are the basis for modern biology and the study of evolution. If we are to accept that humans came about through natural selection and evolution, we also need to accept that it is a beneficial process, and our actions in subverting it are damaging to the species as a whole. Eugenics is a proven, and logical field of study.

Let's look at a case of disgenics for proof. Royal families often interbred, therefore we are breeding among a limited pool of genes. Within that pool there existed the trait for Porphyria, which exists in about 1 in every 25,000 people in the world.*

The royal family bred, and this trait propagated, and because it was among a limited pool, it spread about, eventually causing many of them to suffer from this disease.

*(eMedicine: Porphyria, Cutaneous Authors: Vikramjit S Kanwar, Thomas G DeLoughery, Richard E Frye and Darius J Adams. Updated: Jul 27, 2010)

[BDF]

Physical illnesses are easily defined compared to mental illnesses. Some mental illnesses can obviously be quite striking, but personally I think if eugenics is ever implemented, it should stay the hell away from messing with people's minds.

Autistic spectrum... is a spectrum. Autism may be considered a mental illness, but is Asperger's syndrome a mental illness? Who defines what is in fact a mental illness? It used to be the case that homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Guile... I even heard someone once try to argue that fascism is a mental illness. This is just something people shouldn't mess with because the damage could be irreversible.

But yes actually I would encourage actions taken towards eliminating genetically predisposed physical illnesses. If the technology is there to stop a kid being born with deformed limbs, why not use it? It makes no sense to me. I wouldn't however support preventing anyone from having kids.

Maybe I'd support eugenics for eliminating mental illnesses too, if a lot more was known about them. Nobody is ready yet I think.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by BDF

Physical illnesses are easily defined compared to mental illnesses. Some mental illnesses can obviously be quite striking, but personally I think if eugenics is ever implemented, it should stay the hell away from messing with people's minds.

Autistic spectrum... is a spectrum. Autism may be considered a mental illness, but is Asperger's syndrome a mental illness? Who defines what is in fact a mental illness? It used to be the case that homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Guile... I even heard someone once try to argue that fascism is a mental illness. This is just something people shouldn't mess with because the damage could be irreversible.

But yes actually I would encourage actions taken towards eliminating genetically predisposed physical illnesses. If the technology is there to stop a kid being born with deformed limbs, why not use it? It makes no sense to me. I wouldn't however support preventing anyone from having kids.

Maybe I'd support eugenics for eliminating mental illnesses too, if a lot more was known about them. Nobody is ready yet I think.

That's what's so great about optional Eugenics, it's a quid pro quo system.

If you do the world a favour and refrain from reproducing, the world will, in return, make sure you are cared for.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Guile

I am speaking of inheritable mental illnesses, or those which can be linked to genetic traits.

The problem is you have to show mental illnesses are inherited and not due to any other factor, otherwise your premise flies out the window. It's a daunting task and one that is somewhat circular. In other words, you have no rational argument for supporting eugenics of mental illnesses that are either inherited or related to a genetic disease.

Originally Posted by Guile

I only mentioned mental, because I do not want this to be focused on simply physical appearance (such as height or hair color), whereas mental capacity is far more important.

Mental capacity is very important but it's also the hardest to accurately measure and determine. Moreover, when savantism is introduced, mental capacity is both very limited and profoundly excelled at the same time. Where do you stand on eugenics and savantism?

Originally Posted by Guile

Time and time again, the laws of natural selection have been proven, and are the basis for modern biology and the study of evolution. If we are to accept that humans came about through natural selection and evolution, we also need to accept that it is a beneficial process, and our actions in subverting it are damaging to the species as a whole. Eugenics is a proven, and logical field of study.

I realize this was aimed at dr2005, however, I'm responding because it applies to a part of my post that you did not respond to. There were several ideas jumbled in my previous post so perhaps it just got over-looked. Human evolution is not based on natural selection, rather it's based on natural selection with many other theories and processes. For the sake of simplicity though I'm only going to focus on natural selection. As I mentioned earlier, natural selection works both ways, it allows the superior to survive (as you have noted) but it, alongside other processes, allow the inferior to survive (as you have not noted). Your argument is thus flawed because you claim to adhere to science, when in fact you're taking a limited and highly skewed view that is not representative of evolution. If you want an example of how inferior organisms can compete and survive in the same environment as superior organisms of the same species, check out African cichlid fish (Astatotilapia burtoni) http://www.stanford.edu/group/fernal...2011CCChen.pdf.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Guile

Time and time again, the laws of natural selection have been proven, and are the basis for modern biology and the study of evolution. If we are to accept that humans came about through natural selection and evolution, we also need to accept that it is a beneficial process, and our actions in subverting it are damaging to the species as a whole. Eugenics is a proven, and logical field of study.

With respect, this isn't Wonderland - merely claiming something is a "proven and logical field of study" does not make it thus. Eugenics is quack science as far as every empirical evaluation of it I have come across is concerned, and again you have yet to offer anything to challenge that conclusion. Again, OMFG!You'reActuallySmart! already covered natural selection far better than I could have done, so I will add nothing more other than to say it is unwise to suggest humans are totally immune from natural selection as you infer. I would argue we are still in its grip one way or another.

Originally Posted by Guile

Let's look at a case of disgenics for proof. Royal families often interbred, therefore we are breeding among a limited pool of genes. Within that pool there existed the trait for Porphyria, which exists in about 1 in every 25,000 people in the world.*

The royal family bred, and this trait propagated, and because it was among a limited pool, it spread about, eventually causing many of them to suffer from this disease.

The claim of porphyria in the genetic pool of the royal families of Europe is based, as far as I can tell, on a disputed claim that George III of England's mental illness was caused by porphyria. This is a retrospective diagnosis with little supporting evidence, as are many of the claims stemming from it. If you are looking for examples of "proof" to support your argument, I would humbly suggest you choose one with more empirical backing.

[Sequin]

A government entity being in control of genetically manipulating its populace for the greater good? If this is what you are suggesting, OP, it is a hard sell. We don't know how genetic manipulation, as it continues to be introduced into the world, will even effect socio-political tides. It is far more likely to create a backlash from religious zealots and organizations than a pro-government support group.

As for genetic manipulation, itself, that already takes place and it will continue to happen in even more impressive ways as the future progresses. As we become more knowledgeable, our science will reflect this and improve. And yes, I do foresee mainstream couples enjoying luxuries such as choosing the physical and genetic traits of their next child in the future. It may sound a bit unethical to modern standards, or even silly, but the idea is one which most people will adapt to. Having said that, there are many factors in play regarding a child's development which make this scenario a "dangerous science" at present. This is because we are not, at this present time, capable of ruling out a large number of factors that could go wrong with "choosing" those types of traits. And many of the problems would likely not become evident until the first of such a generation began to grow older.

Is it dangerous? Yes. But it will happen.

As the saying goes, "you can't stop science." I believe that fully. But as for a utopian society purging genetic disease for the good of mankind? That casts a poor shadow on the science of genetic research, which is exclusive of any socio-political movement. Human beings, when they organize into groups, become a lot less intelligent as a rule. I wouldn't trust the future genetic good of society if it were placed under the care of said society's government. People make better decisions for themselves when they make them alone. And scientists create much greater futures when they aren't moved by political means.

[Tyr.]

This is some Brave New World shit.

I don't approve.

- Tyr