Eugenics

[The Atheist]

First rule here is to keep the discussion seemly, I know this is an emotive subject.

Godwins are an immediate 10 point penalty, so let's leave them for the high-school debaters.

Second rule is, that for the purposes of this discussion, eugenics means just this and no more:

Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species.

Not ripping foetuses out of mothers because they have don't conform to genetic perfection, but just the selection - and removal of genes - in an effort to design a human race.

Scientifically, this is quite feasible, and we have centuries of proof in breeding animals to prove that it is clearly possible to build a healthier species by selectively breeding a population to order.

Morally, I think a strong secular case can be made for improving the human race physically and maybe intellectually.

Historically, I think we do it by default as a by-product of our evolved genes anyway, where we are conditioned to look for a genetically-suitable partner and while it's a bit haphazard, the idea is basically the same. China does it with the one-child rule, sperm banks do it with screening of candidates to a criteria, countries with arranged marriages have it done by parents and social heirarchy does it by limiting children to potential mates of the desirable social group/class.

Realistically, the only problem with eugenics is the political one - who makes the decision on which genes are de/selected for. Once it becomes a doctrine, it is open to abuse, so the idea can never be used on a wide scale, despite the clear benefits to mankind as a species.

[Paulclem]

This is undoubtedly going to become a hot topic in the future as genetic research is able to apply gene therapy to eradicate genetic predispositions to illness. I think that the disease eradication approach will come first as the benefits are clear, and it is just an extension of preventative medicine. I bet they don't call it eugenics though.

[Virgil]

Frankly the thought is disgusting. I guess the Nazis themes seem to recycle every so often.

[Dinkleberry2010]

The one-child rule in China has nothing to do with eugenics. The aim of the one-child rule is population control, not improving the species.

[OrphanPip]

Scientifically, this is quite feasible, and we have centuries of proof in breeding animals to prove that it is clearly possible to build a healthier species by selectively breeding a population to order.

I'm not so sure I buy this. A lot of selective breeding has accidentally produced loads of problems as well. We see this mostly in animals that have been selected on the basis of aesthetics. However, with issues such as pleiotropy and the predisposition for genes in close proximity to be inherited together due to recombination, it is difficult to be sure of exactly what we are selecting for. Russian scientist attempting to breed for docility in foxes also produced black and white foxes that barked and had floppy ears. They weren't breeding for those traits, they just happened to be carried along with the docility. Not to mention the difficulty of defining what a "healthier" species is. A person in milaria infested Africa with sickle cell syndrome is arguably "healthier" than a person with wild type haemoglobin, despite the higher risk of heart disease and stroke. We never know what kind of detrimental mutations may have benefits in the future. Certain dysfunctional forms of the CCR5 receptor confer greater immunity to HIV. The mere fact that these people exist in the population gives us greater insight into the disease. Likewise, abnormal forms of proteins can teach us much about how these proteins function. We risk a lot by attempting to normalize the human gene pool.



Morally, I think a strong secular case can be made for improving the human race physically and maybe intellectually.

Certainly transhumanist make a strong argument for it. From the Brave New World thread you know what I feel about the moral aspects. I don't like the idea of human beings deciding the fate of other human beings to such an extent.



Historically, I think we do it by default as a by-product of our evolved genes anyway, where we are conditioned to look for a genetically-suitable partner and while it's a bit haphazard, the idea is basically the same. China does it with the one-child rule, sperm banks do it with screening of candidates to a criteria, countries with arranged marriages have it done by parents and social heirarchy does it by limiting children to potential mates of the desirable social group/class.

The mere existence of selective behavior in the wild doesn't justify the behavior. Mate selection is one level, but their is always some level of randomness which differentiates this immensely.



Realistically, the only problem with eugenics is the political one - who makes the decision on which genes are de/selected for. Once it becomes a doctrine, it is open to abuse, so the idea can never be used on a wide scale, despite the clear benefits to mankind as a species.

Well I agree the political aspect is certainly a huge issue.

[Hurricane]

I get as annoyed by stupid people as the next person, but I really think this starts down a dangerous path. Aside from the practical/biological reasons OrphanPip mentioned, how do you balance what's "good" and "bad"?
I just don't like the idea of the government intruding (even more) into the health and reproductive choices of its citizens, especially when trying to decided something as arbitrary as "good" or "bad" genes. The China example isn't a good thing, it's horrible that they do that.
Mostly, I'm leery of any situation where the government comes and tells me "Ok, Hurricane, we know you're athletic and your family has historically been blessed with health and longevity, but you're dumber than a box of rocks and blind as a bat, so you can't breed. Sorry!"

[Nick Capozzoli]

One thing we have to do in discussing this topic is to define the terms. As the OP stated, eugenics broadly refers to human (i.e. artificial) efforts to alter the genetic composition of the human species. There are two general strategies to do this, which may be termed positive and negative eugenics. Negative eugenics involves preventing parents from propagating their genes to their offspring. Examples are sterilization, abortion of fetuses with identified genetic characteristics, and prohibitions against breeding by parents with identified traits. Positive eugenics involves encouraging the transmission of selected traits. Examples are selection of sperm and egg donors to produce offspring, using in vitro and in vivo methods. There are sperm and egg banks that attempt to identify "suitable" donors and recipients of genetic material. Examples would be the "Nobel" sperm bank and various other "celebrity" sperm and/or egg banks...

A third path would involve developing technologies in gene therapy. The technology may soon allow us to delete "undesirable" genes and replace them with "desireable" ones. It seems feasible to replace somatic genes in the near future, but if you want to alter inherited gene frequencies a means to replace gametic genes will need to be developed. Sorry for the lengthy post, but we need to clarify these ideas.:redface:

[Nick Capozzoli]

Just a few more comments on eugenics, but I want to preface them by saying that I am deeply troubled by any societally imposed restriction on the freedom of parents to procreate.

Humans have throughout history mated and produced children, within the limits of the possibilities available to them at the time. For the most part the survival of their offspring has depended on natural selection determining the fitness of the offspring, but since the development of human culture, cultural selection has played an increasing role.

Now that we understand the genetic basis of inheritance, cultural selection, including more conscious and explicit attempts at "breeding" (artificial selection, as in animal and plant breeding) is possible to a degree never before imaginable.

Medicine has resulted in people living longer with genetic diseases that in the past would have rendered them Darwinianly "unfit." This has resulted in an increase in the frequency of many harmful genes. This includes not only recessive genes but also sporadic dominant genes (e.g. retinoblastoma.

Lest one think that such positive eugenic strategies, like selective sperm and egg banks, are without unintended biological problems, consider that these could lead to limitation of genetic variability. Just imagine thousands of women being inseminated by some specific celebrity (like Mick Jagger). Then their offspring could interbreed, leading to all sorts of well-known genetic problems...

Just a few thoughts, and I'll leave it there for now.

[billl]

If Hitler analogies are off the table (no matter how appropriate they might be) then we can just play the Mick Jagger card instead.

Just kidding, I think OrphanPip made some good points about (other) unintended consequences and the importance of variety, as well.

[Noisms]

Scientifically, this is quite feasible, and we have centuries of proof in breeding animals to prove that it is clearly possible to build a healthier species by selectively breeding a population to order.

No; we have centuries of proof in breeding animals to show that is possible to breed more specialised individuals of a given species. That is a different thing to creating "a healthier species".

For example, individual domesticated cattle are not "healthier" as a "species" than wild ungulates. In fact in most respects, other than having tasty flesh and producing lots of milk, they are inferior. They are more susceptible to disease, less hardy, and stupider. Their specialisation comes at a sacrifice.

That isn't to say that one couldn't breed a race of cattle who are hardier, more resistant to disease and more intelligent than wild breeds. But likewise, this would probably result in the sacrifice of other desirable characteristics.

The same would be true of humans.

Now, you might argue that specialisation can be a desirable goal for human beings - we could have more intelligent breeds, stronger ones, more fertile ones, etc. etc. In answer to that I direct you to Robert Heinlein:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

*

I also feel like I should point out that there is a fundamental misunderstanding in your position and in that of eugenics generally, in that it assumes that evolution, reproduction, selection (natural or otherwise) etc. works at the level of a species. It doesn't. It's all about individuals. Eugenics would not modify "the human race"; it would create more specialised human individuals. This is an important distinction.

[The Atheist]

This is undoubtedly going to become a hot topic in the future as genetic research is able to apply gene therapy to eradicate genetic predispositions to illness. I think that the disease eradication approach will come first as the benefits are clear, and it is just an extension of preventative medicine. I bet they don't call it eugenics though.

Good point, the word is kinda loaded, as Virgil confirms for us...


Frankly the thought is disgusting. I guess the Nazis themes seem to recycle every so often.

There's the first -10! Godwined at only post 2.

Virgil, what's so disgusting about it? Can we discuss it rationally? Or is a kneee-jerk Godwin the best you can do? You're better than that. This is a discussion subject, not the Fourth Reich.


The one-child rule in China has nothing to do with eugenics. The aim of the one-child rule is population control, not improving the species.

It has everything to do with eugenics. When people are only allowed one child, they'll do anything to have a child of their choice, which is why so many girl foetuses are aborted.

[The Atheist]

I'm not so sure I buy this. A lot of selective breeding has accidentally produced loads of problems as well. We see this mostly in animals that have been selected on the basis of aesthetics.

Exactly that.

Sheep & dogs are two perfect examples. One has been enhanced by selective breeding for commercial purposes, one for aesthetic reasons. You'd hope we could do better for ourselves, but I'm not holding my breath!

:D


However, with issues such as pleiotropy and the predisposition for genes in close proximity to be inherited together due to recombination, it is difficult to be sure of exactly what we are selecting for.

Sure. we don't have to start next week.


Russian scientist attempting to breed for docility in foxes also produced black and white foxes that barked and had floppy ears. They weren't breeding for those traits, they just happened to be carried along with the docility.

Yep, and you hit on one of the big detracting points of genetic modification - the rejects. Are they different from the genetic rejects we have already? Are they "better" or "worse".

Pragmatically, that comes down to an abortion debate - we should be able to tell soon enough in utero that there's a problem and abort. Is that different from a couple who are too lazy to use contraception choosing abortion?


Not to mention the difficulty of defining what a "healthier" species is. A person in milaria infested Africa with sickle cell syndrome is arguably "healthier" than a person with wild type haemoglobin, despite the higher risk of heart disease and stroke. We never know what kind of detrimental mutations may have benefits in the future. Certain dysfunctional forms of the CCR5 receptor confer greater immunity to HIV. The mere fact that these people exist in the population gives us greater insight into the disease. Likewise, abnormal forms of proteins can teach us much about how these proteins function. We risk a lot by attempting to normalize the human gene pool.

I think you could establish some clear guidelines on what constitutes a healthy human being - a lack of inherited diseases would be a good starting point, I don't see this question as any kind of problem

Do you not think ridding the world of cyctic fibrosis is a worth a risk or two?


Certainly transhumanist make a strong argument for it. From the Brave New World thread you know what I feel about the moral aspects. I don't like the idea of human beings deciding the fate of other human beings to such an extent.

And it's valid. I don't think eugenics has to involve any kind of pesonally fateful decisions, other than ensuring we remove some things from the gene pool.


The mere existence of selective behavior in the wild doesn't justify the behavior. Mate selection is one level, but their is always some level of randomness which differentiates this immensely.

I'm not trying to justify it, I'm pointing out that it's quite normal behaviour to some extent in every species. They just lack the same precision we can hit.


Well I agree the political aspect is certainly a huge issue.

I should've said political/moral, but they're one and the same.


I get as annoyed by stupid people as the next person, but I really think this starts down a dangerous path. Aside from the practical/biological reasons OrphanPip mentioned, how do you balance what's "good" and "bad"?

I think defining the bad is not so hard.

Inherited disease
Some kinds of DNA specific immunities
Spina bifida...

Things which are guaranteed to have a negative impact on a person's health.


I just don't like the idea of the government intruding (even more) into the health and reproductive choices of its citizens, especially when trying to decided something as arbitrary as "good" or "bad" genes. The China example isn't a good thing, it's horrible that they do that.

It's not something governments should ever be involved with.

And it isn't necessarily with eugenics. With things like cloning species and CERN, governments don't have any input; the ethics questions being decided by ethics committees from within the sciences themselves.


"Ok, Hurricane, we know you're athletic and your family has historically been blessed with health and longevity, but you're dumber than a box of rocks and blind as a bat, so you can't breed. Sorry!"

You'd need to find someone with more tact than me to sell the idea - that's one of my lines!

:lol:

[The Atheist]

One thing we have to do in discussing this topic is to define the terms. As the OP stated, eugenics broadly refers to human (i.e. artificial) efforts to alter the genetic composition of the human species. There are two general strategies to do this, which may be termed positive and negative eugenics. Negative eugenics involves preventing parents from propagating their genes to their offspring. Examples are sterilization, abortion of fetuses with identified genetic characteristics, and prohibitions against breeding by parents with identified traits. Positive eugenics involves encouraging the transmission of selected traits. Examples are selection of sperm and egg donors to produce offspring, using in vitro and in vivo methods. There are sperm and egg banks that attempt to identify "suitable" donors and recipients of genetic material. Examples would be the "Nobel" sperm bank and various other "celebrity" sperm and/or egg banks...

Bingo!

It's not as though this isn't happening right now in some form or other.


A third path would involve developing technologies in gene therapy. The technology may soon allow us to delete "undesirable" genes and replace them with "desireable" ones. It seems feasible to replace somatic genes in the near future, but if you want to alter inherited gene frequencies a means to replace gametic genes will need to be developed. Sorry for the lengthy post, but we need to clarify these ideas.:redface:

Mate, if you think that's a big one, you should read some of the crap I do elsewhere.

Pretty soundly put.


Just a few more comments on eugenics, but I want to preface them by saying that I am deeply troubled by any societally imposed restriction on the freedom of parents to procreate.

Why is that?

Isn't it just our social conditioning which makes us say that? I find it incredible that we insist that people buy a licence to own a dog and must pass a test to drive a car, but when it comes to parenting a child, we have no restrictions at all.

I can think of a stupendous number of pieces of scum who have committed horrific crimes who should never be allowed to procreate. What chance is a child going to have after being born into an abusive, destructive household?

I'm of the way of thinking that it's just social construct. Having kids is the single most important thing a human can do. You could be creating a Charles Manson or a Betthoven. If there came a way to test for that in utero, I'd take it and dump the Manson every time. These things obviously might not come to pass - to be able to test for violence and insanity in the womb.

But given the advances in technology in the past 200 years, they just might.


Just a few thoughts, and I'll leave it there for now.

Again, I agree with all that.

Except the bit about Mick Jagger....

He's the example I was going to use but had to change to Charles Manson!

:D


If Hitler analogies are off the table (no matter how appropriate they might be) then we can just play the Mick Jagger card instead.

Yeah, it only took two posts.

Nice change from the usual one in these type of threads, but I did say he was out.

Now that the Fuehrer is out of the bag, I'll admit why political interference should never be allowed, then the question goes away anyway.

;)


That isn't to say that one couldn't breed a race of cattle who are hardier, more resistant to disease and more intelligent than wild breeds. But likewise, this would probably result in the sacrifice of other desirable characteristics.

The same would be true of humans.

Science has lived and learnt.

As you note, we breed to specific traits and no doubt would do for humans as well and there will be tears when some of the efforts go awry.

I've covered the "healthier and better" aspect above.


Now, you might argue that specialisation can be a desirable goal for human beings - we could have more intelligent breeds, stronger ones, more fertile ones, etc. etc.

Potentially, sure. That's just an extension of what young humans do already. How many really intelligent people have dumbo-thicko husbands/wives? How many supermodels go out with fat, ugly bald, poor men?

If child-bearing is a right, then certainly the shallow types who would breed their kids for spurious reasons would probably reap what they sow.

:)


I also feel like I should point out that there is a fundamental misunderstanding in your position and in that of eugenics generally, in that it assumes that evolution, reproduction, selection (natural or otherwise) etc. works at the level of a species. It doesn't. It's all about individuals. Eugenics would not modify "the human race"; it would create more specialised human individuals. This is an important distinction.

No.

Eugenics does work at the species level. Change enough individuals and you change the species because the other genes die out. Extinct species, the horse, dogs, take your pick.

[Noisms]

Science has lived and learnt.

As you note, we breed to specific traits and no doubt would do for humans as well and there will be tears when some of the efforts go awry.

I've covered the "healthier and better" aspect above.

You're assuming specialisation is a good thing. It isn't, generally speaking. The more specialised members of a given species are, the more vulnerable they are if conditions change. You see this all the time in the natural world when a species which lives on a very specific food source becomes vulnerable when that food source disappears.

Compare the polar bear to the raccoon. Polar bears are specialised for hunting seals - if all the seals disappeared for some reason the polar bears would be in trouble. But remove a major foodstuff of the raccoon (apples, say) and they are adaptable enough to survive.



Potentially, sure. That's just an extension of what young humans do already. How many really intelligent people have dumbo-thicko husbands/wives? How many supermodels go out with fat, ugly bald, poor men?

If child-bearing is a right, then certainly the shallow types who would breed their kids for spurious reasons would probably reap what they sow.

:)

I think you're confused about what evolution is all about. Intelligent humans don't choose intelligent mates because of some desire to make the human species more intelligent. They choose intelligent mates because intelligence is a desirable trait in their young. Full stop. Evolution is not about natural selection of species, it is about natural selection of individuals (really, natural selection of individual genes).



No.

Eugenics does work at the species level. Change enough individuals and you change the species because the other genes die out. Extinct species, the horse, dogs, take your pick.

Wild horses and dogs aren't extinct. But that's splitting hairs. I think you missed my point, which was that individuals don't give a flying turd about "the species" - they care about themselves (and their familes and friends). When you talk about eugenics you are really talking about selecting some individuals for breeding and preventing the breeding of other individuals. If you imagine that the individuals who are prevented from breeding will take that quietly, you're madder than I thought. ;)

[Hurricane]

There's the first -10! Godwined at only post 2.

Virgil, what's so disgusting about it? Can we discuss it rationally? Or is a kneee-jerk Godwin the best you can do? You're better than that. This is a discussion subject, not the Fourth Reich.

Well, the Nazis DID use eugenics, so I'd say it's fair. Saying "let's talk about eugenics, but not mention the Nazis!" is like saying "let's talk about concentration camps and not mention the Nazis!". It can be done, but there's such a strong association that the Nazis are sort of considered the "gold standard" of eugenics so it's hard to avoid.
A more interesting conversation could be talking about eugenics in America during the Progressive era. That's some pretty scary/interesting stuff.


I think defining the bad is not so hard.

Inherited disease
Some kinds of DNA specific immunities
Spina bifida...

Things which are guaranteed to have a negative impact on a person's health.

My Dad works on genetic diseases, stuff like Hunter's Syndrome that's really rough and does hell on the people who have it. Obviously they haven't been able to find a cure for this kind of thing yet, but the science is getting there and there's already treatments that can improve the quality of life of the kids who have it.
I think that our energies could probably be better spent if we focused on treatment and eventual cures, especially since we don't really know all the ins and outs of genetics yet (I know you said this would be long term thing and not in the immediate future, just saying).

[Jozanny]

Eugenics has been used to literally dehumanize both African American populations and the disabled, and its so-called attractiveness in pop culture long survived German fascism.

I am sorry Atheist, I know you mean no harm, but I am a disability journalist, and have reported on horrible, terrible crimes against human dignity well up into this century, and I want no part of this discussion even as a mere abstract debate. Western societies have grave crimes to answer for, and eugenics practices and policies are one.

[eric.bell]

Isn't it just our social conditioning which makes us say that? I find it incredible that we insist that people buy a licence to own a dog and must pass a test to drive a car, but when it comes to parenting a child, we have no restrictions at all.

Aren't you being a little presumptuous, The Atheist? 1) You are ignoring the fact that there are those out there that do not believe the government should be licensing every little bit of their lives, i.e. buying a dog, going fishing, floating a river; 2) You presume that healthy individuals (both in the physical and the psychological) may not be bore by--shall we say deviant parents; 3) How could/would a government possibly deal with parents that procreated without proper licensing? Kill the newly born babe?

Also people assume that imperfections are bad things. Are they not what makes us truly human? A perfect world is that world which is imperfect. Because perfection is boring.

[Virgil]

There's the first -10! Godwined at only post 2.

Virgil, what's so disgusting about it? Can we discuss it rationally? Or is a kneee-jerk Godwin the best you can do? You're better than that. This is a discussion subject, not the Fourth Reich.

No. You guys can discuss it. I don't participate in "creating the master race."

[The Atheist]

You're assuming specialisation is a good thing. It isn't, generally speaking. The more specialised members of a given species are, the more vulnerable they are if conditions change. You see this all the time in the natural world when a species which lives on a very specific food source becomes vulnerable when that food source disappears.

No, you seem to be reading my posts incorrectly.

I have used specialisation in animals as an example of the ease of eugenics, not as a reason for it.


I think you're confused about what evolution is all about.

Having written quite extensively on the subject, I think that's highly unlikely.


Intelligent humans don't choose intelligent mates because of some desire to make the human species more intelligent. They choose intelligent mates because intelligence is a desirable trait in their young. Full stop.

If you look carefully, that's exactly what I've been saying.


Evolution is not about natural selection of species, it is about natural selection of individuals (really, natural selection of individual genes).

Correct.



When you talk about eugenics you are really talking about selecting some individuals for breeding and preventing the breeding of other individuals.

No, that's far too narrow a scope. Read what Nick C said.


If you imagine that the individuals who are prevented from breeding will take that quietly, you're madder than I thought. ;)

Haha. I don't imagine they'll take it quietly at all.


Well, the Nazis DID use eugenics, so I'd say it's fair. Saying "let's talk about eugenics, but not mention the Nazis!" is like saying "let's talk about concentration camps and not mention the Nazis!".

No it is not.

Nazi eugenics were specifically about creating a master race. Eugenics as a subject is not.


My Dad works on genetic diseases, stuff like Hunter's Syndrome that's really rough and does hell on the people who have it. Obviously they haven't been able to find a cure for this kind of thing yet, but the science is getting there and there's already treatments that can improve the quality of life of the kids who have it.
I think that our energies could probably be better spent if we focused on treatment and eventual cures, especially since we don't really know all the ins and outs of genetics yet (I know you said this would be long term thing and not in the immediate future, just saying).

And if the only way of avoiding the disease is removing the genes? Cystic fibrosis is an excellent example.


Aren't you being a little presumptuous, The Atheist? 1) You are ignoring the fact that there are those out there that do not believe the government should be licensing every little bit of their lives, i.e. buying a dog, going fishing, floating a river;

No, I was talking about facts, not hypotheses. We are subject to those laws.


2) You presume that healthy individuals (both in the physical and the psychological) may not be bore by--shall we say deviant parents;

Of course they aren't all born to rejects, but that was just a sideshow to highlight the mess we've enabled. Given that the mix of nature vs nurture is unknown, we'll probably never know anyway.


3) How could/would a government possibly deal with parents that procreated without proper licensing? Kill the newly born babe?

No governments involved, remember. I'd expect a responsible parent to recognise that a foetus with cystic fibrosis is better off aborted, but there wouldn't be any force involved. If we start on force, I'd have to allow Adolf back on the table and we don't need him.


Also people assume that imperfections are bad things. Are they not what makes us truly human? A perfect world is that world which is imperfect. Because perfection is boring.

I'm not bothered by imperfections, but again using cystic fibrosis, I'd like to see any argument which says the sufferers' lives are better than those who don't have it.

[Hurricane]

No it is not.

Nazi eugenics were specifically about creating a master race. Eugenics as a subject is not.


How do you go about eugenics without attempting to create a master race? You mentioned in the first post that through eugenics we could create a better human race, physically and mentally. How is that not creating a master race?

I'm not saying people shouldn't do screening during pregnancy (like Israel testing for Tay-Sachs and other diseases, for example), but it should be up to that family whether or not they want to terminate the pregnancy or choose to carry the child to term.

(Also, I think you accidently quoted me in your last post.)

[Nick Capozzoli]

Isn't it just our social conditioning which makes us say that? I find it incredible that we insist that people buy a licence to own a dog and must pass a test to drive a car, but when it comes to parenting a child, we have no restrictions at all.

I can think of a stupendous number of pieces of scum who have committed horrific crimes who should never be allowed to procreate. What chance is a child going to have after being born into an abusive, destructive household?

It probably is our social conditioning (at least in modern liberal Western culture) that makes us shrink from enforced restrictions on mating and procreation, though not gto long ago here in the USA we required a negative Wasserman test prior to granting a marriage license...And it was that liberal Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendall Holmes, who approved the sterilization of a certain lineage by saying "three generations of imbeciles are enough," or something very close to that.

As to your comment about the "stupendous number of pieces of scum who are allowed to procreate," I would point out that sociopathic males (those suffering from what the DSM calls "antisocial personality disorder) have a very high "natural" Darwinian fitness. They are able to inseminate multiple females, including women who are married to other men, who wind up raising these offspring...the cuckold phenomenon. This is a theme in many 18th and 19th Century novels (to keep this post on the Lit Net track).:)
Nick

[The Atheist]

How do you go about eugenics without attempting to create a master race? You mentioned in the first post that through eugenics we could create a better human race, physically and mentally. How is that not creating a master race?

Well, it would be if we were trying to increase intelligence and physical abilities, but I don't see those as very important.

The main thrust of eugenics should be eradication of hereditary disease, which is hardly creating a master race.


I'm not saying people shouldn't do screening during pregnancy (like Israel testing for Tay-Sachs and other diseases, for example), but it should be up to that family whether or not they want to terminate the pregnancy or choose to carry the child to term.

It is pretty much everywhere. Foetuses here are screened for spina bifida and Down Syndrome, but there's no compulsion to terminate.


(Also, I think you accidently quoted me in your last post.)

No surprise, I try to stuff up multi quotes as often as I can!

I'll try to edit it. thanks.


It probably is our social conditioning (at least in modern liberal Western culture) that makes us shrink from enforced restrictions on mating and procreation, though not gto long ago here in the USA we required a negative Wasserman test prior to granting a marriage license...And it was that liberal Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendall Holmes, who approved the sterilization of a certain lineage by saying "three generations of imbeciles are enough," or something very close to that.

You wouldn't get away with it now!


As to your comment about the "stupendous number of pieces of scum who are allowed to procreate," I would point out that sociopathic males (those suffering from what the DSM calls "antisocial personality disorder) have a very high "natural" Darwinian fitness. They are able to inseminate multiple females, including women who are married to other men, who wind up raising these offspring...the cuckold phenomenon. This is a theme in many 18th and 19th Century novels (to keep this post on the Lit Net track).:)
Nick

Yep, you're dead right. It's a shame that evolution and human morality don't work a bit more closely.

[soundofmusic]

This reminds me of a personal experience. When my husband was 21 he was told he had a hereditary disorder called Tuberous Sclerosis, and that no one with it had lived past the age of 27. He decided to have no children; though the probability of passing the gene was only 25%. He suffered terribly over the years with seizures, mental illness, brain and kidney tumors; and was cut piece by piece until he died at 53.

The Scientific community isolated this gene some 20 years ago and has spent 20 years collecting money from grieving parents...The parents keep having children, hoping that the 25% ratio works. I know one woman who has had 5 out of her 7 children with this illness.

People should be more responsible to themselves and to society. If a couple has a child with downs syndrome, it is not just a drain on them; it is a drain on taxpayers. My husbands medical bills were about 250,000 dollars a year, the government paid these after we could no longer get insurance.

[The Atheist]

This reminds me of a personal experience. When my husband was 21 he was told he had a hereditary disorder called Tuberous Sclerosis, and that no one with it had lived past the age of 27. He decided to have no children; though the probability of passing the gene was only 25%. He suffered terribly over the years with seizures, mental illness, brain and kidney tumors; and was cut piece by piece until he died at 53.

Nothing like a dose of reality.

You're a tough chick.

[Noisms]

No, you seem to be reading my posts incorrectly.

I have used specialisation in animals as an example of the ease of eugenics, not as a reason for it.

Well, one of us is reading the other's posts incorrectly, but it isn't me! I made the point that eugenics is by definition about specialisation, which is a major reason why it is flawed. You haven't really bothered to answer that point.


Having written quite extensively on the subject, I think that's highly unlikely.

Oh! You're written extensively on the subject! And where can one read these hallowed texts? ;)


If you look carefully, that's exactly what I've been saying.

And if you think carefully, you'll realise it undermines the very idea of eugenics. People choose mates because of individual preference, for the good of themselves (i.e. their genes) and not for "the good of the species". (To paraphrase Dawkins, what about the good of the class of the Mammals, or of the phylum of the Vertebrates? Why limit yourself to humans? Should we not selectively breed all vertebrate species instead? :rolleyes:)


No, that's far too narrow a scope. Read what Nick C said.

If you are going to define eugenics so broadly that it includes merely the stance that "a cure for cystic fibrosis would be good" then I don't think anybody would disagree with it. In the same way that nobody would disagree with "racism is bad" or "we should prevent genocide". But if you're going to make banal statements like that, where is the debate and why start the thread?

You must have a more controversial vision of eugenics in mind than "eliminating cystic fibrosis would be good" otherwise you wouldn't have brought up the debate!

[The Atheist]

Well, one of us is reading the other's posts incorrectly, but it isn't me! I made the point that eugenics is by definition about specialisation, which is a major reason why it is flawed. You haven't really bothered to answer that point.

Ok then, we're just using the word differently and you've given it properties I don't.


Oh! You're written extensively on the subject! And where can one read these hallowed texts? ;)

Lots of scientific forums, mostly. There's a thread here as well (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44359). I don't claim to be any more than an amateur student of the field, but in layman's terms, I doubt many people have a better or more in depth understanding of evolution.


And if you think carefully, you'll realise it undermines the very idea of eugenics. People choose mates because of individual preference, for the good of themselves (i.e. their genes) and not for "the good of the species".

This is becoming circular. Unless they have no offspring, a couple will produce children whose genes will then enter the gene pool. Unless you think all humans are clones, each birth changes the species a tiny amount.

You seem to be stuck on a very narrow, politicised version of eugenics.

If you're struggling with the meaning of the word, just relax it a bit - this is a literature forum, after all.

Eugenics is not necessarily a species-wide doctrine. Within the sacred right of people to bear children, they would be able to choose specific (there's your specialisation) traits for their children of their own choosing. Hence my analogy to mate selection and Nick's point about sperm banks.


(To paraphrase Dawkins, what about the good of the class of the Mammals, or of the phylum of the Vertebrates? Why limit yourself to humans? Should we not selectively breed all vertebrate species instead? :rolleyes:)

In what way does this relate to eugneics? I am not a whale or lizard. While it might be expedient for me to protect those species for my own selfish reasons, they are of no more intrinsic value than an ant or rock.


If you are going to define eugenics so broadly that it includes merely the stance that "a cure for cystic fibrosis would be good" then I don't think anybody would disagree with it.

I wish you were right, but the mere mention of the word drives people into a frenzy. Maybe the process just needs re-branding.


In the same way that nobody would disagree with "racism is bad" or "we should prevent genocide". But if you're going to make banal statements like that, where is the debate and why start the thread?

Someone mentioned it in another thread and I said I'd start a thread on it.


You must have a more controversial vision of eugenics in mind than "eliminating cystic fibrosis would be good" otherwise you wouldn't have brought up the debate!

You should get to know me better - I'll talk about anything. I don't "have a vision of eugenics" in mind. Some parts are good, some parts aren't so good.

[Noisms]

Ok then, we're just using the word differently and you've given it properties I don't.

And you're still not really answering the point. Selective breeding, however you might choose to define its scope, is at the core of eugenics, is it not? (See your 'second rule' in your initial post.) But selective breeding does not result in improvement in any objective sense. It only results in specialisation, and specialisation is not always a very useful characteristic in a mammal species.

This applies even if you try to move the goalposts and reframe eugenics around genetic modification, as it seems you're trying to do. While nobody would argue that genetic modification to eliminate dangerous inherited diseases is a bad thing, that is where that form of "eugenics" outweighs its usefulness. Diversity is important. Look up neurodiversity some time.



Lots of scientific forums, mostly. There's a thread here as well (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44359). I don't claim to be any more than an amateur student of the field, but in layman's terms, I doubt many people have a better or more in depth understanding of evolution.

Well, if I were you I'd let others be the judge of that!



This is becoming circular. Unless they have no offspring, a couple will produce children whose genes will then enter the gene pool. Unless you think all humans are clones, each birth changes the species a tiny amount.

You seem to be stuck on a very narrow, politicised version of eugenics.

If you're struggling with the meaning of the word, just relax it a bit - this is a literature forum, after all.

Eugenics is not necessarily a species-wide doctrine. Within the sacred right of people to bear children, they would be able to choose specific (there's your specialisation) traits for their children of their own choosing. Hence my analogy to mate selection and Nick's point about sperm banks.

You're the one who couched the intitial debate in terms of improving the species. As you put it (in your second rule): "Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species." So don't let's start disingenuously changing those terms now. If I'm stuck on a particular reading of the term "eugenics", it's by your choosing, not mine.

In any case, you appear to be missing my point. The facts that eugenics is not by definition a species-wide doctrine, and that when a couple produces a child it changes the gene pool for the species - these are not in dispute. The point is that none of that improves the species, which is the goal with which you have framed the debate. "Improving the species" is a meaningless goal for eugenics because: a) Selective breeding does not result in objective improvement (see above) and b) Species are not coherent units, but merely genetically similar populations of individuals.



In what way does this relate to eugneics? I am not a whale or lizard. While it might be expedient for me to protect those species for my own selfish reasons, they are of no more intrinsic value than an ant or rock.

Precisely. And while it might be expedient for you or I to protect the human species for our own selfish reasons, it is of no more intrinsic value than an ant or rock. See?

My point, as you seem to be missing it, is that I, as an individual, have the same level of interest in "improving the human species" as I do in "improving the class of the mammals" or "improving the phylum of the vertebrates" or "improving the kingdom of animals" - which is to say zero.

Individuals want to improve themselves and their familes. Now, this motivation may result in eugenics through genetic modification, as you have alluded to, if genetic modification ever becomes widespread. But this is unlikely to fulfill your goal of "improv[ing] the species". It will probably result simply in a lack of genetic diversity.

[The Atheist]

And you're still not really answering the point. Selective breeding, however you might choose to define its scope, is at the core of eugenics, is it not? (See your 'second rule' in your initial post.) But selective breeding does not result in improvement in any objective sense. It only results in specialisation, and specialisation is not always a very useful characteristic in a mammal species.

Sure. I agree that "improvement" isn't something which can be readily defined, so I'm happy to take a subjective view.


You're the one who couched the intitial debate in terms of improving the species. As you put it (in your second rule): "Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species." So don't let's start disingenuously changing those terms now. If I'm stuck on a particular reading of the term "eugenics", it's by your choosing, not mine.

I'm not changing anything. As I said, I'm being subjective.


Precisely. And while it might be expedient for you or I to protect the human species for our own selfish reasons, it is of no more intrinsic value than an ant or rock. See?

No.

We can explain preservation of the species as the one thing with a substance to it. Back to evolution - no procreation, no species. We can say that human life is more valuable to us than other matter.

The only alternative is a descent into solipsism and you seem to be anti-isms.


My point, as you seem to be missing it, is that I, as an individual, have the same level of interest in "improving the human species" as I do in "improving the class of the mammals" or "improving the phylum of the vertebrates" or "improving the kingdom of animals" - which is to say zero.

We have differing views. Nothing unusual there.


Individuals want to improve themselves and their familes. Now, this motivation may result in eugenics through genetic modification, as you have alluded to, if genetic modification ever becomes widespread. But this is unlikely to fulfill your goal of "improv[ing] the species". It will probably result simply in a lack of genetic diversity.

Unlikely, given the number of humans. It's a problem for thoroughbred horses, but it's pretty well understood.

Whether the improvements were real will need to wait for hindsight.

[Noisms]

Sure. I agree that "improvement" isn't something which can be readily defined, so I'm happy to take a subjective view.

It isn't that "improvement" can't be readily defined, it's that it isn't defined in the way you seem to think it is. "Improvement" in evolutionary terms merely amounts to a greater ability to survive and pass on genes. To coin a phrase, a slug is as "improved" as a human in the only sense that matters - whether it can survive or not. Eugenics may make human beings more intelligent, but that might not be an improvement in the evolutionary sense.



I'm not changing anything. As I said, I'm being subjective.

"Being subjective" doesn't mean "changing the terms of the debate as and when it suits".



No.

We can explain preservation of the species as the one thing with a substance to it. Back to evolution - no procreation, no species. We can say that human life is more valuable to us than other matter.

The only alternative is a descent into solipsism and you seem to be anti-isms.

Not at all. It isn't true that human life qua human life is more valuable to us than other matter. Right now, the animal and vegetable life that me, my family and friends live on, is probably more important to me than human life in Kazakhstan and Morocco. And similar equations are true of everybody on earth.

(Which doesn't mean I wish harm on anyone in Kazakhstan or Morocco. But you get my drift.)



Unlikely, given the number of humans. It's a problem for thoroughbred horses, but it's pretty well understood.

Whether the improvements were real will need to wait for hindsight.

100,000 years ago genetic diversity wasn't a problem for cheetahs, either, but 100,000 years is a long time.

[The Atheist]

It isn't that "improvement" can't be readily defined, it's that it isn't defined in the way you seem to think it is. "Improvement" in evolutionary terms merely amounts to a greater ability to survive and pass on genes. To coin a phrase, a slug is as "improved" as a human in the only sense that matters - whether it can survive or not. Eugenics may make human beings more intelligent, but that might not be an improvement in the evolutionary sense.

No, I think the problem's simpler than that.

I'm not limiting myself to evolution. The example I've mentioned time and again is the eradication of diseases. I count those as improvements and am not too fussed about whether that description matches anyone elses.

In evolutionary terms, no, we won't know for many generations whether the changes to the species are evolutionarily sustainable. Again I'm repeating myself, but some will work out and some won't.

I don't see humans as an infinite species, so I don't see it as a problem either way.


"Being subjective" doesn't mean "changing the terms of the debate as and when it suits".

Where has that happened?

Do give examples because I think it's a fairly silly tack. This is a discussion forum, not a debating society. We've clearly been using terms in different ways, but if you think I've changed something completely, show details.


Not at all. It isn't true that human life qua human life is more valuable to us than other matter. Right now, the animal and vegetable life that me, my family and friends live on, is probably more important to me than human life in Kazakhstan and Morocco. And similar equations are true of everybody on earth.

This is a classic example of the way I think you're mis-reading my posts, and I even bolded the key word so you didn't go there. This is what I said:


We can say that human life is more valuable to us than other matter.

I specifically said one can use humanistic principles to decide human life has more value than other matter. That doesn't make it compulsory. I'm usually pretty disgusted by the attitude that anything is more important than human life, but never surprised.


100,000 years ago genetic diversity wasn't a problem for cheetahs, either, but 100,000 years is a long time.

There were never billions of cheetahs. They never lived on every continent and island on the planet, and they most certainly were never able to adapt their environments to suit their needs.

Just a poor analogy.

[soundofmusic]

I find that people are always arguing against advanced technology because of the negative uses a few sociopaths could make of it. What is wrong with removing genes that potentially cause obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes. Have you any idea how much suffering these diseases cause? Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars are spent giving free aide to people with these diseases.
Do you all truly have an objection to living longer, having better immune systems, having children that don't need tutoring and can leave home and get jobs?

[Nick Capozzoli]

I find that people are always arguing against advanced technology because of the negative uses a few sociopaths could make of it. What is wrong with removing genes that potentially cause obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes. Have you any idea how much suffering these diseases cause? Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars are spent giving free aide to people with these diseases.
Do you all truly have an objection to living longer, having better immune systems, having children that don't need tutoring and can leave home and get jobs?

In principle there is nothing wrong with "removing genes that potentially cause obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes...etc. The debate occurs
over how you "remove" these genes (and let's forget for a moment how you identify these genes and decide, once you have identified them, the statistical risk they pose to their possesor of actually developing the diseases
that they "potentially" cause. If you can technologically excise these genes from an individual and replace them with more favorable ones, so that the individual doesn't suffer from the disease, and better yet, not pass on the gene to his or her descendants, it would be hard to object. But when you talk about restricting the ability to procreate, that is a sticky wicket.

During most of human history natural selection rather harshly weeded out maladaptive traits. Human medical technology has allowed offspring with these
traits to survive and reproduce.

Nick

[Nick Capozzoli]

During most of human history natural selection rather harshly weeded out maladaptive traits. Human medical technology has allowed offspring with these
traits to survive and reproduce.
Nick

Please forgive me for quoting myself, but consider this. Let's suppose that
some now extinct species, like the Irish Elk (not technically an elk) possessed the wherewithal to "immunize" their sexually selected but environmentally maladaptive bigger antlers from the harsh effects of "natural" selection. That would be analogous to our ability, through technology, to permit people with deleterious traits (like retinoblastoma) to live to reproductive age and reproduce. Would this be a good thing for the Irish Elk in the long term? I don't know, but I think that we need to pose the question clearly.

What are the long term evoluionary downsides to allowing deleterious genes to increase in frequency in the human population? Again, I don't know.

One way to approach this question is to take the optimistic attitude that medical technology will allow us to "rise above" natural selection, i.e. that
technology will provide a way for us to maintain the Darwinian fitness of our species while we allow "unfit" genes to increase in frequency. Maybe we can do this, and maybe we can't.

[NikolaiI]

I find that people are always arguing against advanced technology because of the negative uses a few sociopaths could make of it. What is wrong with removing genes that potentially cause obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes. Have you any idea how much suffering these diseases cause? Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars are spent giving free aide to people with these diseases.
Do you all truly have an objection to living longer, having better immune systems, having children that don't need tutoring and can leave home and get jobs?

I absolutely agree, and I have always thought this, and it seems very simple to me.

As TA said, there are many varieties of eugenics which are in practice, though they are by-products and haphazard. Also there are countless science-fiction references.

I would say I don't understand why people think eugenics is necessary sinister - as a study and practice it could be engaged by individuals or groups. Not in an attempt to control others but to study it and practice it involving anyone who also wants to achieve the same goals.

Now as to the traits, and as to the practice - I would say a lot of studying should be done first. But it really should be studied. I think Abraham Maslow should be consulted, as well. Physical traits of good health are good, and complicated perhaps but even more complicated are traits of good mental health. Those traits may be more complicated but also are probably more important. So it seems to be a very intricate question.

What is the most essential trait of good mental health? It is basically a deep-seated peace... I may not be describing it right. But I would say underlying and most important of everything is the search for peace, love, and truth, etc. The reason I delve into this is simply this: physical good health is all well and good. But even Western science and medicine now knows: the body and mind are not separate from each other, but they are part of each other and affect each other. So therefore we can't select for physical health only, but mental health follows and the two are not separate.

And mental health is probably far more complicated and intricate a subject than physical health, but my own opinion is that the most important and universal need or ideal or value is the value of love - and along with it are peace and truth... now these are philosophical terms, but anyway that is my analysis.

Again, let me say, in response to the people who object to eugenics because of its association with the Nazis - it doesn't need to be in relation to government or anything like that. I am considering the best approach might be a low-budget, private organization which is interested in this, who would devote their time and energy... not that it has to be the focus of attention or even known to the rest of the country(ies).

And about the questions I raised, I don't assume that there are necessarily any conclsions which all would agree on...