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.

[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!

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!

[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.

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!

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).