Advertisement, Pop Culture, Eugenics [Archive]

Mr Endon

06-24-2009, 09:40 AM

Nah, I think that it's just evolution at work. People, in general, have a tendency to pick the most attractive partner, but, in heterosexual relationships, that is a two-way process meaning that if people from both sides try to find the most attractive partner possible they probably end up with someone who is about as attractive as they themselves are.

Sure eugenic concerns are natural to some extent, but it's completely different once it's enforced by the mass media. I mean, what about the hundreds of teenagers that die of anorexia every year? What's natural about that?

Well, the vast majority of figures in classical art - from Greece up to the late Victorians - look pretty good, so if that was representative of the population, then the human race has become much more diversely ugly.

No, it wasn't representative, that's the whole point of classicism: idealisation, not faithful representation.

Either that, or representations of human beings have always been idealised in Western culture.

That would be a safer bet.

Again, I'm not saying it's something new, just something going out of hand if you ask me. Beauty standards are skyhigh and celebrity worship drives people toward increasingly superficial lifestyles. I'm not concerned with the moral implications of this, but rather the potentially dangerous consequences of eugenic views in the long run.

amarna

06-24-2009, 09:49 AM

Don't think that there is an eugenic concern or an interest to breed beauties. This entire cult of beauty is a matter of consumption. They want you to feel yourself physically deficient to make you spend all your money for a beautification. People who are content with their appearance - genetically pimped or not - would be uneconomic. Bad consumers.

1n50mn14

06-24-2009, 10:03 AM

MarkBastable

06-24-2009, 10:16 AM

The physique represented by female models is incredibly unhealthy, so I've got to say it's not a good system for eugenics... I believe in a eugenics system, but that system targets the HEALTHIEST, the STRONGEST, and the MOST INTELLIGENT, not the 'most beautiful'. I've got to run, but I'll be back to this thread later...

I notice that 'healthiest', 'strongest' and 'most intelligent' are rendered in capitals, presumably because they are important in the argument, and of value to you. And 'most beautiful' is given in inverted commas, as if it were not even 'real'.

Me, I favour a system of eugenics aimed at weeding out people who use CAPITAL LETTERS for EMPHASIS. You may think that this is frivolous, but it's as important to me as identifying the STRONGEST is to you.

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but if I were to pursue this system for breeding out those who use CAPITAL LETTERS for EMPHASIS, how would I enforce such a system in society at large?

Mr Endon

06-24-2009, 10:27 AM

amarna, that economic perspective of it is spot on. I still think there's more to it than profit, though.

Nevertheless, let me admit this much: it's perhaps farfetched to link advertisement and celebrity cult with eugenics. I phrased my idea in the wrong way. This is what the OP should have been:

Today's advertisement and celebrity worshipping got me thinking about eugenics. What do you think about it?

Basically, I want to focus on eugenics. I think it can be really dangerous, and if it isn't pushed too far it's still to my mind reproachable discrimination. And I also mean more than just physical beauty, though that's the most obvious form of eugenics in today's society.

One example: Jodie Foster's sperm donor. Now, one thing is to do a background check on the sperm donor to make sure there is no history of diseases - which is of course an eugenic concern, but is basically standard procedure. Quite another to choose "tall, dark-haired and 'strikingly handsome' university scientist with a PhD and IQ of 160". Also, and clearly related to this, there's the issue of engaging in genetic manipulation in order to create superchildren.

Of course it's understandable to strive to be the "strongest, healthiest, most intelligent". But to actively interfere with the gene pool with the specific purpose of creating lean mean machines sets, I believe, a dangerous precedent.

amarna

06-24-2009, 11:35 AM

MarkBastable

06-24-2009, 11:39 AM

Hm, the form of eugenics Jodie Foster practiced is an old chestnut, isn't it? Even 5000 years ago people tried to get a preferably intelligent, healthy and handsome partner or sperm phial to reproduce with.
We live in a society which is orientated on optimization and efficiency of anything and everything. I do not see a reason, why the process of reproduction should be exempted from this efficiency principle. (Ok, ethical reasons of course, but what I mean are reasons which are inherent to the system.)

I agree with you about Jodie Foster. So, intending to breed with someone you think has the right stuff - fair enough, up to you, of course, go ahead.

But eugenics is by definition, I think, systematic.

So - trying to get other people who you think have the right stuff to breed only with people who you think have the right stuff - not okay, stop that immediately, who the hell do you think you are, see you at the barricades, babe.

amarna

06-24-2009, 11:56 AM

So, intending to breed with someone you think has the right stuff - fair enough, up to you, of course, go ahead.
But - trying to get other people who you think have the right stuff to breed only with people who you think have the right stuff - not okay, stop that immediately, who the hell do you think you are, see you at the barricades, babe.

So do you mean, eugenics is not ok except within the own family? Are there different ethical standards? Does the life of the own offspring have a lower value than the life of other people's progeny?

(Edit: I only said that eugenics is inherent to a system which is stricty orientating on efficiency. I did not, and you can get this in capital letters: NOT, say that I sympathise with such an idea).

MarkBastable

06-24-2009, 12:10 PM

So do you mean, eugenics is not ok except within the own family? Are there different ethical standards? Does the life of the own offspring have a lower value than the life of other people's progeny?

I'm saying that you tend to breed with whom you find attractive - it's a choice you can make on your own behalf. But it's not a choice you can make on anyone else's behalf.

amarna

06-24-2009, 12:20 PM

I'm saying that you tend to breed with whom you find attractive - it's a choice you can make on your own behalf.

You're so generous.

MarkBastable

06-24-2009, 12:30 PM

You're so generous.

Hang on - just so we're clear here. Do you think that I was making an argument for eugenics? And do you think I thought that you were? Because I didn't.

All I was saying was that Jodie Foster's thing didn't really qualify because eugenics is systemic not personal. I didn't mean that I thought you meant that societal systems were eugenic.

Ah - it was because I used the word 'system' close to you using it - but I didn't mean the same system.

Ah well.

Shall we start again?

Mr Endon

06-24-2009, 01:01 PM

Jodie Foster's case is not really eugenics because it's personal? I must say I disagree.

The thing is, we must draw the line somewhere. One thing is to choose a healthy donor. That's fine, of course.

Quite another is to find one with all the perfect physical and mental attributes - dangerous for me not because of the actual personal result, but rather for the reasoning behind it, which will lead to systemic eugenics. You might say efficiency is the word of order and Foster's decision is fair play - fair enough; however, we must be on our guard, as it's a small step from Jodie Foster's superdad->superkid to having parents choosing their children's kind of eyes, hair, shape of nose, size of feet, and predisposition toward using more the left or the right brain hemisphere even before they are born, and, at least to me, that's a frightening prospect. Yet that's what scientists are striving towards, what people demand, and what will eventually be accomplished.

Also, this is basically enabling people's urge to make up for their failed lives by living through their perfect children, which is no different from today's reality other than it would be done genetically other than culturally, and thus the commodification of the child, in my view, is even greater.

What I'm saying is, I'd draw the line in deliberate genetic manipulation which changes more than vital health conditions. This too is part of the eugenic agenda, if not its holy grail, and quite frankly something that scares the hell out of me.

amarna

06-24-2009, 01:02 PM

Shall we start again?

Yes, let's start again. I'd had a cousin who spent 30 years lying on a mattress, crying, shaken by spasms, brain like a sponge, and died. I can't decide if it would have been better to abort him. I don't think that it would have been better if he never had existed and I can't praise prenatal diagnosis (which in fact IS eugenics), but I do understand parents who wish to have healthy, long-living, smart, handsome and happy children. Honestly, I don't have an answer.

Mr Endon

06-24-2009, 01:17 PM

amarna, as for the 'healthy, long-living, smart, handsome and happy children', I most certainly agree with 'healthy', and in that way you might say I partially support eugenics; all the rest is either up to them or really irrelevant. I mean, of course we all want 'smart and handsome' children, but how important is it to have children with a 160 IQ and exquisite features? Are we to manipulate their genes for the sole purpose of satisfying our instincts and self-indulgent desires?

So basically (and I'm sorry to repeat what I've just posted, but you might not have read it),

What I'm saying is, I'd draw the line in deliberate genetic manipulation which changes more than vital health conditions. This too is part of the eugenic agenda, if not its holy grail, and quite frankly something that scares the hell out of me.

Don't you think that's a good place to draw the line?

amarna

06-24-2009, 01:32 PM

amarna, as for the 'healthy, long-living, smart, handsome and happy children', I most certainly agree with 'healthy', and in that way you might say I partially support eugenics; all the rest is either up to them or really irrelevant. I mean, of course we all want 'smart and handsome' children, but how important is it to have children with a 160 IQ and exquisite features? Are we to manipulate their genes for the sole purpose of satisfying our instincts and self-indulgent desires?

So basically (and I'm sorry to repeat what I've just posted, but you might not have read it),

Don't you think that's a good place to draw the line?

I read it, but I think it isn't so easy drawing lines. If your wife would be pregnant and the doc would say: "Mr. Endon, Mrs. Endon, your child will have all vital functions, but it will have an IQ of 76, I assure you, you can make a better one." Would you?

grace86

06-24-2009, 01:46 PM

I haven't had the opportunity to read through this discussion quite as much as I would like, but I did a similar study into the media that had a eugenics type of feel to it. Before doing the study I had never consciously realized (maybe off topic) that there was such a thing as ageism - like racism against the aged. Along with this whole prepping to what is considered beautiful...getting old, particularly in America, is seen as something not beautiful. What do you guys think? I know that there seems to be this fear of a lot of the elderly that I have known of being thrown into old homes...where as in some other countries age is not stigmatized but rather seen as something to be acheived; the elderly are honored.

Kind of tying this into the media, and eugenics...and with age, I thought you guys might be interested in the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. I don't know how heard of it is, but I've attached the link.

There's some cool youtube clips, one on completely changing the physical appearance of a young lady, and another about how age is beautiful...quite opposite to what media notions have displayed.

Personally, I don't know if it is so much of a eugenics type of thing, as it is (as someone mentioned earlier) a sort of market. I think it is economically driven. This is just an opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_playlists&search_query=Dove+Campaign+for+Beauty&uni=1

Mr Endon

06-24-2009, 01:49 PM

I read it, but I think it isn't so easy drawing lines. If your wife would be pregnant and the doc would say: "Mr. Endon, Mrs. Endon, your child will have all vital functions, but it will have an IQ of 76, I assure you, you can make a better one." Would you?

No, I guess it isn't that easy to say where the line should be drawn, and yet we must try. I've often been accused of trying to see complex issues in black and white, but usually I prefer to simplify than to complicate.

As for your example, it's very hard to say, because I can't possibly predict how I would really react in that situation. If I may hazard a guess, however, I think I wouldn't change it. I'm a very patient man and I'd make sure he'd have the happiest life his limitations allowed for.

The problem with tuning children is the precedent it sets.

But now I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance. Is it even possible that we'd be satisfied with intelligent, physically and mentally healthy children? The short answer is no. And yet if we can make lives mustn't we?

It's again a problem of idyllic potential and its incompatibility with human nature. The way I see it, we will come to have the cure for problematic births, but perhaps not the restraint it takes to administer it wisely.

Mr Endon

06-24-2009, 02:16 PM

I haven't had the opportunity to read through this discussion quite as much as I would like, but I did a similar study into the media that had a eugenics type of feel to it. Before doing the study I had never consciously realized (maybe off topic) that there was such a thing as ageism - like racism against the aged. Along with this whole prepping to what is considered beautiful...getting old, particularly in America, is seen as something not beautiful. What do you guys think? I know that there seems to be this fear of a lot of the elderly that I have known of being thrown into old homes...where as in some other countries age is not stigmatized but rather seen as something to be acheived; the elderly are honored.

Yes, ageism does have some bearing to eugenics. After all, when taken to the extreme, eugenics looks down on the sick and the elderly. It's something I can't really understand, as I've always liked the elderly better than my own age group.

This is not at all backed by any reading or reliable source, but my theory is that the reverence of the elderly in certain cultures is a way people found out to fight the reifying tendency towards maximum efficiency that we find thriving in modern society.

It's a downright shame that there's such a powerful stigma towards the elderly, and I strongly believe part of it is due to the emphasis not only on efficience but also on the importance of being 'beautiful' in our society.

grace86

06-24-2009, 02:25 PM

This is not at all backed by any reading or reliable source, but my theory is that the reverence of the elderly in certain cultures is a way people found out to fight the reifying tendency towards maximum efficiency that we find thriving in modern society.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this. I'm not sure if I agree completely on cultures honoring the elderly as a way to escape tendencies toward reification on maximum efficiency. I believe there might be more to it than this, that there are wider cultural structures at play, but I would like to know your thoughts a little further if you would share them. Just interested in your perspective.

Mr Endon

06-24-2009, 02:44 PM

Well, maybe I came across as too stringent in my views; what I really mean is that I think it plays at least a role in such reverence. Also, it is, I think, is a way to ensure that you yourself will be taken care of when you get to an older age, i.e. there are personal interests at play as well (I don't really believe in pure altruism).

But what I meant earlier was that I believe the idea of the wise elderly, who teach the young and give sound advice, was partly created out of necessity; otherwise, they'd be little more than a burden in an environment such as, say, the Amazon forest. In today's society the elderly are more readily perceived as amiable gagas or hardline reactionaries than the keepers of great wisdom or even as much as equals. The fact that they're having a hard time keeping up with technological advances, for instance, has doubtless contributed to this scornful perception of the elderly.

Again, all this is just what I make of it, and surely reading something about ageism would be of great profit to my articulation of a more sensible theory.

Needless to say, ageism is a disgraceful scourge, and awareness campaigns must be set up to fight this.

1n50mn14

06-24-2009, 03:40 PM

I notice that 'healthiest', 'strongest' and 'most intelligent' are rendered in capitals, presumably because they are important in the argument, and of value to you. And 'most beautiful' is given in inverted commas, as if it were not even 'real'.

Me, I favour a system of eugenics aimed at weeding out people who use CAPITAL LETTERS for EMPHASIS. You may think that this is frivolous, but it's as important to me as identifying the STRONGEST is to you.

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but if I were to pursue this system for breeding out those who use CAPITAL LETTERS for EMPHASIS, how would I enforce such a system in society at large?

Was that really necessary?

Eugenics based on the premise of imitating natural selection doesn't give a CRAP about whether or not I use CAPITAL LETTERS for EMPHASIS. That is completely irrelevant.

I'd reply to that in an equally snarky fashion, but it would probably get me kicked off the boards, so I'm going to leave this thread now... ciao.

grace86

06-24-2009, 04:29 PM

Quote from Mr EndonWell: maybe I came across as too stringent in my views; what I really mean is that I think it plays at least a role in such reverence. Also, it is, I think, is a way to ensure that you yourself will be taken care of when you get to an older age, i.e. there are personal interests at play as well (I don't really believe in pure altruism).

But what I meant earlier was that I believe the idea of the wise elderly, who teach the young and give sound advice, was partly created out of necessity; otherwise, they'd be little more than a burden in an environment such as, say, the Amazon forest. In today's society the elderly are more readily perceived as amiable gagas or hardline reactionaries than the keepers of great wisdom or even as much as equals. The fact that they're having a hard time keeping up with technological advances, for instance, has doubtless contributed to this scornful perception of the elderly.

Again, all this is just what I make of it, and surely reading something about ageism would be of great profit to my articulation of a more sensible theory.

Oh I wasn't being skeptical or anything. Just interested. Being a student of anthropology has gotten me interested in understanding how others perceive certain aspects of their culture. So I asked for an elaboration.

I like the points I put in bold. I think in a culture we make sure we provide roles so that people can remain active within a society. I think there's a need for it.

:D If you happen to be interested...(to get back on topic a little bit)...if you wanted to read something on it (not saying you have to or anything), I found this interesting book online called Aged by Culture by Margaret Morganroth. I haven't picked it up yet but I started reading the first part...and there's an introduction with the story of the media and shaping our perceptions of what is old. It's something to think about if you're pursuing reading in eugenics and beauty and what our cultures have to say about it.

Thanks for letting me pick your brain a little bit! :D

MarkBastable

06-24-2009, 05:02 PM

Was that really necessary?

Eugenics based on the premise of imitating natural selection doesn't give a CRAP about whether or not I use CAPITAL LETTERS for EMPHASIS. That is completely irrelevant.

I'd reply to that in an equally snarky fashion, but it would probably get me kicked off the boards, so I'm going to leave this thread now... ciao.

Natural selection favours the fittest - and in that context, 'fittest' means 'most suited to succeed under the prevailing conditions'. In this society, the most beautiful appear to be successful, so if you want to imitate natural selection, those are the traits you'd go for.

My point was that your choices of what should be selected are arbitrary and personal. If I were to suggest - as I did - breeding out the tendency to use capital letters, you'd quite rightly be offended. As, indeed, less-than-healthy, or not-very-strong people might be offended by your choices of what should be encouraged by eugenics.

Eugenics is not at all like natural selection, because it's controlled by external premises. The selection within a eugenics-driven system is quite the opposite of natural. It's also pretty immoral.

Mr Endon

06-24-2009, 05:08 PM

Anthropology student? Fascinating! The closest I've been to that was to have Sociology in highschool, and it was one of my favourite subjects (second only to English and German, of course :))

:D If you happen to be interested...(to get back on topic a little bit)...if you wanted to read something on it (not saying you have to or anything), I found this interesting book online called Aged by Culture by Margaret Morganroth. I haven't picked it up yet but I started reading the first part...and there's an introduction with the story of the media and shaping our perceptions of what is old. It's something to think about if you're pursuing reading in eugenics and beauty and what our cultures have to say about it.

Thanks for letting me pick your brain a little bit! :D

Why thank you for having made me think about what I'd said. As I tried to justify my theory I was dismayed to realise how poor my knowledge of the subject is, so I'd definitely like to read that book. The first 27 pages are available in Google Books, so I'll start there! And thanks for bringing up ageism, not only is it relevant to eugenics but it's also a very important issue to me.

Eugenics is not at all like natural selection, because it's controlled by external premises. The selection within a eugenics-driven system is quite the oppoiste of natural. It's also pretty immoral.

Hear hear! I couldn't have put it better.

But for the sake of discussion someone please disagree with this view. :)

amarna

06-24-2009, 05:27 PM

But for the sake of discussion someone please disagree with this view. :)

OK. Fancy some hardcore morality? ;) There's is no line you can draw since it would be a line between human beings who are valuable enough to be alive and human beings who are not.
But value of human life can't be put into a perspective, it is absolute. Any human life has the same value.

Mr Endon

06-24-2009, 05:39 PM

Fancy some hardcore morality? ;) There's is no line you can draw since it would be a line between human beings who are valuable enough to be alive and human beings who are not.
But value of human life can't be put into a perspective, it is absolute. Any human life has the same value.

OK, so what you're saying is that no life is any better than any other (which which all of us surely agree). From that it follows that no life ought to be thought of and treated as inferior. This in turn is an argument against eugenics. One of the possible conclusions that can be drawn from this is that it's better no eugenics at all than full-blown eugenics.

If this is what you meant I wholeheartedly agree :)

grace86

06-24-2009, 06:11 PM

Anthropology student? Fascinating! The closest I've been to that was to have Sociology in highschool, and it was one of my favourite subjects (second only to English and German, of course :))

Why thank you for having made me think about what I'd said. As I tried to justify my theory I was dismayed to realise how poor my knowledge of the subject is, so I'd definitely like to read that book. The first 27 pages are available in Google Books, so I'll start there! And thanks for bringing up ageism, not only is it relevant to eugenics but it's also a very important issue to me.

Sociology is a tad different, but they're related. I hear that professors in each field claim superiority of the one in which they belong to. It seems to be an ongoing kind of joke. :p

Mind my asking your age range? I ask because it's a particular interest you have taken up. And your reference to having taken sociology in highschool piqued my curiosity.

Another book that addresses eugenics in some respect that I just thought about is The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould. He refutes the Bell Curve. Might be interesting for further reading. I loved it. I will check out that one I recommended you read in my previous post. I didn't know you could read about 30 pages into it off of google!

amarna

06-24-2009, 06:26 PM

OK, so what you're saying is that no life is any better than any other (which which all of us surely agree). From that it follows that no life ought to be thought of and treated as inferior. This in turn is an argument against eugenics. One of the possible conclusions that can be drawn from this is that it's better no eugenics at all than full-blown eugenics.
If this is what you meant I wholeheartedly agree :)

Yes, that was it what I meant. But no eugenics at all would result in banning abortion and birth control. Gosh, I don't like this thought and, as to this, do definitely not agree with myself. If that's not a cognitive dissonance again...

Mr Endon

06-24-2009, 06:58 PM

Sociology is a tad different, but they're related. I hear that professors in each field claim superiority of the one in which they belong to. It seems to be an ongoing kind of joke. :p

Mind my asking your age range? I ask because it's a particular interest you have taken up. And your reference to having taken sociology in highschool piqued my curiosity.

Another book that addresses eugenics in some respect that I just thought about is The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould. He refutes the Bell Curve. Might be interesting for further reading. I loved it. I will check out that one I recommended you read in my previous post. I didn't know you could read about 30 pages into it off of google!

By age range do you mean my own or the elderly's? ;) I'm a 1987 child, but have always been an old soul, so that probably explains my feelings of kinship towards the elderly.

I've added your recommendation to my Amazon wish list, thanks! And yes, Google Books really is something, isn't it?

By the way, I knew nothing about that Bell Curve theory, so I had a quick look at it in wikipedia, and it seems to be very relevant to the discussion of eugenics! Would you mind explaining in a nutshell what this Herrnstein believed in?

Yes, that was it what I meant. But no eugenics at all would result in banning abortion and birth control. Gosh, I don't like this thought and, as to this, do definitely not agree with myself. If that's not a cognitive dissonance again...

Ha, interesting how uneasy it makes us feel to be at odds with ourselves. My view on birth control remains unchanged, but I quite agree with its impact on abortion. I've actually been reading some articles related to abortion, as that dreadful dissonance has been kicking away at me ever since I had a discussion about that issue with a friend of mine. But hush, no more of it ;)

So I agree: 'partial eugenics' sounds reasonable as a moderate take on a very intricate issue, but drawing a line would require consensus as to what is excusable as life-saving and life-affirming action and what is inadmissible. That, I guess, will never happen.

grace86

06-24-2009, 07:31 PM

I've added your recommendation to my Amazon wish list, thanks! And yes, Google Books really is something, isn't it?

By the way, I knew nothing about that Bell Curve theory, so I had a quick look at it in wikipedia, and it seems to be very relevant to the discussion of eugenics! Would you mind explaining in a nutshell what this Herrnstein believed in?

I never had the opportunity to read The Bell Curve, I had to read Mismeasure of Man for a seminar on race. Hernstein I think goes over the basis of human intelligence and how it relates to things socially and economically...like low wage jobs and poverty and unwed pregnant mothers. He talks about how intelligence level puts one in their socioeconomic status...and pays no attention to the higher issues like government etc. What he ended up doing I think was classifying races into categories and placing them in certain levels according to what he deemed as intelligence. With his western perspective, Caucasian males were at the top of the hierarchy and something like Asian were next and down the line in races he considered least in intelligence...ie at the time he put Africans. He claims that his scientific tests support his findings.

What Gould wrote was an absolute refutation of Hernstein's model and displayed how all the "scientific" tests conducted to test intelligence were really not scientific at all. And that any tests done in a scientific manner showed absolutely no or minimal differences in things like craniometry to measure intelligence. The whole subject is quite interesting. Gould goes over each test specifically.

Gould mentions that scientific research and scientists are often a product of their culture. He's very witty and blunt to say that sometimes the answers found in the research all depend on what agency/institution is backing the funding. I found this aspect at the beginning of his book very interesting.

Sorry I could not be of more help on what Hernstein said specifically. Ever since I read Gould's book I've wanted to see what the fuss with the Bell Curve was. Perhaps we could start a "Serious Discussion Reading Book Club" and hence further the conversation in the "Serious Discussions" thread!

By age range do you mean my own or the elderly's? ;) I'm a 1987 child, but have always been an old soul, so that probably explains my feelings of kinship towards the elderly.

Yeah I was asking how old you are. Some people don't like to answer that question. I asked because I didn't know who I was speaking with. Age range personally helps me relate a little bit better. There are some very intelligent and "old soul"-like youngsters on here too...so I was curious. Obviously, you and I are very close in age.

Glad to know you've taken my recommendation and added it to your Amazon wish list! Talk to you further tomorrow!

Mr Endon

06-25-2009, 05:04 PM

Thanks a lot for that summary! Gould's comments on the results of research and the funding behind them are indeed very interesting - and scary. And people still wonder why I'm so skeptic about knowledge.

And craniology! That's so 19th century! Seriously, that Hernstein seems to be quite a piece of work. A week ago I read bits from Nordau's hilariously derisive and unscientific Degeneration, written in 1892, and this Bell Curve seems to have come straight out of that mindset. But to say those things in the 1990's! I mean, how can anyone take him seriously.

By the way, "Serious Discussion Book Reading Club" sounds excellent!

grace86

06-25-2009, 05:27 PM

We'll have to figure out how to start that club hehehe. I'm sure we'd just have to advertise it here and say, "hey anyone interested in doing some reading with us on this?!" :idea:

The Atheist

06-25-2009, 10:08 PM

Excellent subject, based as it is in sound evolutionary practices.

I mean, what about the hundreds of teenagers that die of anorexia every year? What's natural about that?

De-selecting weak genes.

I'm fascinated by eugenics discussions, tainted as they are by the inevitable spectre of dystopias. What's so bad about trying to select strong genes? As noted, we do it by default, based on physical appearance. We abort babies with Down Syndrome and spina bifida; surely, it'd be more seneible to de-select the genes before pregnancy?

As usual, the trouble isn't so much where the line is drawn, but who gets to draw it.

amarna

06-26-2009, 05:03 AM

Excellent subject, based as it is in sound evolutionary practices. De-selecting weak genes. I'm fascinated by eugenics discussions, tainted as they are by the inevitable spectre of dystopias. What's so bad about trying to select strong genes? As noted, we do it by default, based on physical appearance. We abort babies with Down Syndrome and spina bifida; surely, it'd be more seneible to de-select the genes before pregnancy? As usual, the trouble isn't so much where the line is drawn, but who gets to draw it.

If someone who has the power to draw lines would try to "deselect" you, Atheist, by some reason, you'll change your meaning very quickly.
Joyce was myopic, Proust an asthmatic, Dostojevski depressive, Byron lame. Would be a shame if they were "deselected", wouldn't it?

Mr Endon

06-26-2009, 07:20 AM

I'm glad this is of interest to you too, The Atheist, and that you're sharing your thoughts on this with us.

Excellent subject, based as it is in sound evolutionary practices.

[Anorexia]

De-selecting weak genes.

Yes, but is it still 'natural' selection if it's something enforced by society?
I mean, imagine arresting people, leaving them without food for a given number of days, and then setting them free. Isn't the net result of this that through human action the fittest have remained?
Pardon the demagogic example, but my point is that this too is de-selection of weak genes, but not ethically defensible at all! I trust you to point to the fallacy in my argument should there be one.

I'm fascinated by eugenics discussions, tainted as they are by the inevitable spectre of dystopias. What's so bad about trying to select strong genes? As noted, we do it by default, based on physical appearance. We abort babies with Down Syndrome and spina bifida; surely, it'd be more seneible to de-select the genes before pregnancy?

As usual, the trouble isn't so much where the line is drawn, but who gets to draw it.

As I'm sure you're aware, my problem isn't as much with the result of having only sane and healthy people as it is with human nature. Artificial control of weak genes sets a precedent which could eventually allow the state ('state' is too political/dystopian maybe, but I really can't find a suitable alternative) what sort of traits people have, and thus make it possible to start conditioning and controlling people even before birth.

My question is: do you have enough faith in human nature to defend human-engendered eugenics? Because I just think that someone will always abuse of the power genetic manipulation can give.

The Atheist

06-26-2009, 02:45 PM

If someone who has the power to draw lines would try to "deselect" you, Atheist, by some reason, you'll change your meaning very quickly.

I might be the one drawing the line.

;)

Joyce was myopic, Proust an asthmatic, Dostojevski depressive, Byron lame. Would be a shame if they were "deselected", wouldn't it?

Couple of things in that: Orwell was a bigger mess than any and if he hadn't been born, I wouldn't miss him. Plus, I don't think any of those traits would be sufficient to warrant abortion/deselection. Maybe the myopia - I hate those guys!

Yes, but is it still 'natural' selection if it's something enforced by society?

Yes!

Because we're just another step in evolution, everything we do has to be classed as natural. It's in our nature to kill, have wars and let kids starve to death, so the ones who die as a result can be called natural deaths, bizarre as it sounds.

It's actually a really good example of evolution in action: have we destroyed a path to longer success as a species by killing off a massive percentage of people who may have been brilliant doctors, philanthropists and scientists? And the billions upon billions of babies who died in their mothers' arms when age expectancy averaged about 30 - which one of them may have been a worse despot than Hitler and which may have been another Buddha?

Fun game thinking about it when you have a millennium or two to spare.

I mean, imagine arresting people, leaving them without food for a given number of days, and then setting them free. Isn't the net result of this that through human action the fittest have remained?

No.

As I'm alluding to above, I think it would be crazy to say the fittest have survived. 10,000 years ago, sure, physical fitness was pretty critical, but since we invented war, we have by nature killed off a very high percentage of the fittest. Bombs/bullets/arrows don't discriminate.

Pardon the demagogic example, but my point is that this too is de-selection of weak genes, but not ethically defensible at all! I trust you to point to the fallacy in my argument should there be one.

In the case of an anorexic, it's an internal weakness to the person. I just don't know on the ethical defence, because it's a subject I can only view objectively, but I can certainly see an argument to remove weak genes, and having seen the results of anorexia, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Or their families.

As I'm sure you're aware, my problem isn't as much with the result of having only sane and healthy people as it is with human nature.

Ditto.

Artificial control of weak genes sets a precedent which could eventually allow the state ('state' is too political/dystopian maybe, but I really can't find a suitable alternative) what sort of traits people have, and thus make it possible to start conditioning and controlling people even before birth.

Yep. Pretty attractive option for a crazy despot.

My question is: do you have enough faith in human nature to defend human-engendered eugenics? Because I just think that someone will always abuse of the power genetic manipulation can give.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sorry, but mate, if you knew me personally, you'd know that the only time the words "faith in human nature" and "The Atheist" go together is in this sentence:

The Atheist has no faith in human nature.

;)

None at all. Baron Acton remins right after all these years, and if Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot have shown us what that kind of limited absolute power can do, then we have to rely on Huxley and Orwell to show what a an even more absolute power would do.

Stupid isn't it? We have the means to improve the human race as a whole, eliminating hunger and disease and extending human life almost indefinitely, but we can't, because some bloke always wants to be the alpha male.

amarna

06-26-2009, 05:03 PM

I might be the one drawing the line.

Dream on.

Mr Endon

06-26-2009, 05:33 PM

Because we're just another step in evolution, everything we do has to be classed as natural. It's in our nature to kill, have wars and let kids starve to death, so the ones who die as a result can be called natural deaths, bizarre as it sounds.

That makes sense.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sorry, but mate, if you knew me personally, you'd know that the only time the words "faith in human nature" and "The Atheist" go together is in this sentence:

The Atheist has no faith in human nature.

;)

None at all. Baron Acton remins right after all these years, and if Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot have shown us what that kind of limited absolute power can do, then we have to rely on Huxley and Orwell to show what a an even more absolute power would do.

Stupid isn't it? We have the means to improve the human race as a whole, eliminating hunger and disease and extending human life almost indefinitely, but we can't, because some bloke always wants to be the alpha male.

Oh, but be fair, my question was essentially a rhetorical one ;)

There are many points of contact between you and me. I'm an atheist as well, I too am skeptical about the human nature, and I smuggle Baron Acton's aphorism into a conversation in every chance that I get.

Now, if you know it will be misappropriated, why do you condone eugenics? Because it's 'inevitable'? It might be perceived as being 'good' to get rid of weak genes, but if we know that artificial, prenatal means to do so are bound to be disasterous, shouldn't we do something about it?

Taliesin

06-26-2009, 05:41 PM

Mr Endon

06-26-2009, 05:56 PM

You know, I was thinking about the anorexia thingy - and actually I don't think it is a totally new thing - the behaviour of some Middle Age saints seems quite anorectic to me.
Fasting because you on one hand find your body impure and on the other hand you want to be pure and noble.
Nothing new under the sun.

Well, monks didn't actually die of anorexia, did they? That's like comparing self-flagelation with shooting oneself with a pistol. The one is just not very healthy, the other could actually get you killed.

[Ah, Cyanide and Happiness! Those guys are insane. I used to read those. Usually I don't like Rob (2/3 of his cartoons are based on puns), and I think Cris is the best.]

Mr Endon

06-30-2009, 04:02 PM

Shamelessly bumping this thread in hopes that The Atheist will reply!

grace86

07-01-2009, 06:42 PM

Shall I bump for you as well?!

Hey how about that book club ;)

Mr Endon

07-01-2009, 07:10 PM

Thanks, it's easier to bump when we're two ;)

I honestly think that the book club is a great idea. Right now (i.e. for the next month) I'm swamped with Beckett material so I'm not sure I could manage reading a book not relevant to my work, but would definitely participate in the discussion if I'd read the book in question, or if we choose to read/discuss an article or a book chapter.

So, what should the topic be? We could do the Bell Curve, but I think it might be a bit of a straw man, I mean, not sure anyone in the forum supports that view. We could start a fresh topic, say, prostitution. Does it necessarily entail humiliation? Should it be legalised? I even have two articles in .pdf defending two contrasting sides :) Or perhaps it'd be better to come up with a more family-friendly one, heh.

The Atheist

07-01-2009, 09:18 PM

Shamelessly bumping this thread in hopes that The Atheist will reply!

Sorry, I missed your post, so well bumped!

Now, if you know it will be misappropriated, why do you condone eugenics? Because it's 'inevitable'? It might be perceived as being 'good' to get rid of weak genes, but if we know that artificial, prenatal means to do so are bound to be disasterous, shouldn't we do something about it?

You couldn't count me as condoning eugenics, because I do believe it will always be mis-used. I think the idea is highly sensible, but I certainly don't trust anyone to keep it apolitical.

Maybe we should figure out how to get rid of those ones first?

:D

Mr Endon

07-02-2009, 04:37 AM

You couldn't count me as condoning eugenics, because I do believe it will always be mis-used. I think the idea is highly sensible, but I certainly don't trust anyone to keep it apolitical.

That's a very reasonable position and I completely agree.

Maybe we should figure out how to get rid of those ones first?

:D

haha, I'm sure they'll find the 'political zealot gene' soon :p

The Atheist

07-02-2009, 05:24 PM

haha, I'm sure they'll find the 'political zealot gene' soon :p

Jeez, I could think of some forums where they're really easy to spot if we decide to do a spot of testing!

:lol::lol:

Mr Endon

07-03-2009, 07:30 AM

Jeez, I could think of some forums where they're really easy to spot if we decide to do a spot of testing!

:lol::lol:

:lol: I hear you! I've been on a serious issues spree and visited a political forum hoping for some enlightenment, but apparently they're playing a last-man-standing sort of game there, where each pitches their own extreme doctrine ad infinitum. It was fun to read for a while but then it just became sad.
Eugenics keeps sounding better and better!

Tsuyoiko

07-03-2009, 08:19 AM

But no eugenics at all would result in banning abortion and birth control.

Abortion and birth control aren't forms of eugenics. "Eugenics" means controlling reproduction with the aim of improving the quality of the human species. Abortion and birth control are methods of controlling reproduction, and they may be utilised in eugenics, but unless they have the aim of controlling the quality of the human species, they aren't methods of eugenics in themselves.

My question is: do you have enough faith in human nature to defend human-engendered eugenics?

No.

What no-one's pointed out here is that aside from the moral objections, there are practical objections, since genetics is only part of what determines the characteristics of an organism. Genes tell only about 50% of the story, with random mutations, environment and upbringing determining the rest. Even if one selects for "beauty", that doesn't prevent a kid growing up ugly through malnutrition or because he fell off his bike and smashed his face.

So in addition to being morally objectionable, eugenics is to some degree futile.

amarna

07-03-2009, 09:29 AM

Abortion and birth control aren't forms of eugenics. "Eugenics" means controlling reproduction with the aim of improving the quality of the human species. Abortion and birth control are methods of controlling reproduction, and they may be utilised in eugenics, but unless they have the aim of controlling the quality of the human species, they aren't methods of eugenics in themselves.

Oups. No, I did not say that abortion and birth control are forms of eugenics. What I said is: Personal efforts to "deselect" handicapped offspring is, at least according to a less tolerant definition of this subject, a form of eugenics too. It's relatively accepted and isn't aimed at large-scaled societal technology, but it's someting like within-family eugenics controlling and increasing the own offspring's qualities.
If this form of eugenics - abortions by embryopathic indication - will be banned, it would be very difficult to justify why abortion by other and maybe less cogent reasons should stay allowed.