Eugenics

[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? )

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. 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? )

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. 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.