A Question About Eugenics

[kitsunefather]

I see a lot of threads here talking about a loss of "hope for humanity" and it brought me back to a regular discussion a friend and I have, regarding eugenics and its application to "improve" the human race.

For those who don't know what it is, Eugenics [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics]is the "self direction of human evolution". It advocates controlled breeding and sterilization of "undesirables". By and large, this research was put to bed when it was used as one of the arguments for the experiments in the Holocaust, but with the tracking of the genome, some scientists have approached it from a different direction.

In essence, they suggest isolating the genes for things like Depression, Schizophrenia, as well as the recessive genes that could lead to things that would be considered a hardship for either the children or the family. Once isolated, the argument goes, we should either sterilize those with them, abort children that have them, or once the technology is strong enough, genetically engineer children to not have them.

My friend supports this idea in a "humans suck" kind of way, that anything to improve the general genetic stock and over time eliminate much of what he considers the "worst" of humanity. To be fair, he understands this policy would remove him from the future gene pool, and is fine with that.

My argument against it is twofold. The first is relatively simple, who do you get to decide what is desirable, and how do you keep them from going too far? Once they've started, how do you know they'll stop?

The second part is that without hardship, we have no art. Most of the people we consider to be the greatest writers in our collective history were suffering from some mental issues at least. You remove a seminal component of the human experience that has led us to where we are, and still guides many of our most creative people.

So.. without evoking Godwin's Law, what are your thoughts on it?

 

[Korolev]

The old way of practicing Eugenics - sterilization, forced abortions, and so on, violates the Human Rights Charter. No one would stand for it any more, and rightfully so. Simply put there IS no way to prevent abuses.

So we go in a different direction - rather than trying to alter our physiology or our genotype by NEGATIVE means, such as selection and outlawing some people to reproduce, we instead use POSITIVE means - instead of preventing people from having children, we give them the OPTION (just the option, we can't force anything) to have the genes repaired.

The time is near - in about 30 or 40 years, we'll have the technology to prevent any genetic diseases from being passed along, while also allowing people to have kids. That way, we don't sterilize anyone, we don't prevent anyone from having kids, we don't violate any human rights, and we can still prevent genetic diseases.

All we have to do is wait a few short decades, and we can have all the benefits of eugenics, without the downsides, the abuses, the human rights violations. All it will take is time.

 

[Kunzer]

This is a very slippery slope. I certainly hope that nobody starts moving along this path.

 

[Wardnath]

About 90% of the time, those that advocate eugenics are the type who'd be on the proverbial chopping block themselves, instead of being at the forefront (am I using that word right?) of the program.

I will give some credit to your friend for not having any delusions of grandeur about the whole thing, though.

As to where I lean on the matter, it should be fairly obvious: I have Asperger syndrome and I'm a bisexual (I think), so to say that I'd be totally fucked in that situation would be like saying the Sun's incredibly hot.

Also: I'm fairly sure that most depression isn't genetic.

 

[zfactor]

I thought you were refering to the company in Time Splitters Future Perfect of the same name... Silly me...

 

[CrystalShadow]

The old way of practicing Eugenics - sterilization, forced abortions, and so on, violates the Human Rights Charter. No one would stand for it any more, and rightfully so. Simply put there IS no way to prevent abuses.

So we go in a different direction - rather than trying to alter our physiology or our genotype by NEGATIVE means, such as selection and outlawing some people to reproduce, we instead use POSITIVE means - instead of preventing people from having children, we give them the OPTION (just the option, we can't force anything) to have the genes repaired.

The time is near - in about 30 or 40 years, we'll have the technology to prevent any genetic diseases from being passed along, while also allowing people to have kids. That way, we don't sterilize anyone, we don't prevent anyone from having kids, we don't violate any human rights, and we can still prevent genetic diseases.

All we have to do is wait a few short decades, and we can have all the benefits of eugenics, without the downsides, the abuses, the human rights violations. All it will take is time.

Oh, there are always downsides. Usually, they fall upon those that are somehow outside the mainstream.

If you want a story revolving around the downsides of what you are suggesting, gattaca comes to mind.

Basically, that film revolves around the fact that with the ability to create 'perfect' people, genetic profiling became common-place. Even with laws against it, companies would test your genetics behind your back, and if you weren't genetically perfect, no job for you.

Great for the people that have been engineered to be better than normal, terrible for anyone that for one reason or another slips through the cracks.

Meanwhile, I just know that with any kind of eugenics, I'd end up in trouble.

I am amazingly talented in some regards, but those innate talents are completely overwhelmed by some serious flaws.

Eugenics, mainly, is a problem because of how we choose what's good and what's bad, and what it means for those who have traits that are considered bad.

 

[Doive]

I suggest that you get your friend to watch a film such as Gattaca. If this sort of thing does happen, it won't be for a while and will be met with ALOT of resistance from the general public, even if it is equally available to everyone, which it won't be.

 

[Marmooset]

So.. without evoking Godwin's Law, what are your thoughts on it?

That's like asking someone to discuss the history of pro hockey without mentioning anything Canadian.

 

[Scout Tactical]

I'm always surprised how cool people think Spartans were in 300, but are totally horrified when eugenics are taken out of this context. Let's make something clear: Hitler wasn't doing anything new. Eugenics have been around since ancient Greece, probably earlier, and before that it was simple natural selection. That being said, since modern humans breed based on looks, much like showdogs, we are underutilizing our gifts.

And your hardship argument is weird, too. Why couldn't we evoke great art from the hands of those forced to go through the hardship of sterilization? We'd get some great stuff, I imagine. In fact, we could torture some artists during Spring and Summer so that the script-writing process can begin to create great movies for the Fall and Winter years later, since art is more important than the suffering of individuals in your opinion.

 

[BlackStar42]

What right do you have to say to someone they can't have children? Eugenics is a terrible idea from an ethical standpoint.
There's no point becoming better humans if we lose our humanity in the process.

 

[VelvetHorror]

No on the sterilization/breeding, yes on the gene altering.

However with the gene altering, it might possibly get more extreme with time, and there should be laws put into place EXPLICITLY stating what can or cannot be altered. Each and every disease should have to go through an institution or maybe even congress to decide if it can be taken out of the genome. If there isn't limits put into place, people might try not only removing disease, but also enhancing natural human capabilities like strength, speed, size, etc. It would be cosmetic gene alteration.

 

[someotherguy]

What right do you have to say to someone they can't have children? Eugenics is a terrible idea from an ethical standpoint.
There's no point becoming better humans if we lose our humanity in the process.

This. A damn thousand times this.

Forcing anything in this regard is bad, and you'll more than likely earn yourself the cold hearted intellectual reputation if you go about promoting it, not saying you shouldn't, go for it, it just makes you like you have a real lack of humanity. I say this because I have a friend who supported it at one point, and thats what I saw in him. After about a year he got over it. Besides, flaws are the spice of life, sort of, right? Eh, probably not, but I like variety.

And most people who have 'lost hope in humanity' are either joking or aren't much of an addition themselves.

Also, the book The Giver comes to mind, if you're interested in reading about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giver

 

[Jonluw]

I'm positive towards it. I don't mind losing the arts in order for the world to be nicer.

As for the slippery slope argument: I call bullshit. First of all, figuring out what should be removed shouldn't be too hard, just remove stuff that would have caused the person trouble with his life. Second, I don't really believe there is such a thing as "too far".

Edit: I would be negative towards altering the genes in order to make us live longer though. We're overpopulated enough as it is.

 

[likalaruku]

All I can say is that stupid people breed like mice in an abandoned wheat silo & smart people breed like unicorns.

 

[ThreeWords]

Bleh. This subject always gets to me.

If you want to do humanity a great deal of god, you could well work a system of eugenics to improve human stock. Within a couple of generations you'd have a considerably superior race, far more capable of dealing with whatever problems may beset us in the future.

However, no one wants to be the one who sets this in motion because no one wants to be responsible for the suffering of the individuals. This includes myself; I would not happily allow a race-improving program if it caused pain and suffering to anyone.

The question, when did this become the case? Why do we prize the individual above the herd? Is this a symptom of the capitalist culture, that we can think in no terms save the individual, or is it a genetic feature, that we cannot see past the problems of a single member of the species, even for the good of the whole species?

 

[gbemery]

Another problem I think would be once you got rid of everything "undesirable" won't people constantly pick new things out that they consider "undesirable"? Because things that seem alright now compared to things that are worse, once the worse things are gone then the others will seem to be the worse of the worse and they might keep the cycle going...if that makes any sense. (it makes sense in my head atleast)

 

[someotherguy]

Bleh. This subject always gets to me.

If you want to do humanity a great deal of god, you could well work a system of eugenics to improve human stock. Within a couple of generations you'd have a considerably superior race, far more capable of dealing with whatever problems may beset us in the future.

However, no one wants to be the one who sets this in motion because no one wants to be responsible for the suffering of the individuals. This includes myself; I would not happily allow a race-improving program if it caused pain and suffering to anyone.

The question, when did this become the case? Why do we prize the individual above the herd? Is this a symptom of the capitalist culture, that we can think in no terms save the individual, or is it a genetic feature, that we cannot see past the problems of a single member of the species, even for the good of the whole species?

It's generally just sympathy, though that comes with a non-radical society and the surrounding culture.

 

[ThreeWords]

Bleh. This subject always gets to me.

If you want to do humanity a great deal of god, you could well work a system of eugenics to improve human stock. Within a couple of generations you'd have a considerably superior race, far more capable of dealing with whatever problems may beset us in the future.

However, no one wants to be the one who sets this in motion because no one wants to be responsible for the suffering of the individuals. This includes myself; I would not happily allow a race-improving program if it caused pain and suffering to anyone.

The question, when did this become the case? Why do we prize the individual above the herd? Is this a symptom of the capitalist culture, that we can think in no terms save the individual, or is it a genetic feature, that we cannot see past the problems of a single member of the species, even for the good of the whole species?

It's generally just sympathy, though that comes with a non-radical society and the surrounding culture.

Radical is a rather useless word here; it is used to mean "people who think differently" and I'm trying to think outside of our own societies point of view.

I wasn't wondering why people would hate me, but what gives them the reason for their opinions. But as you mention it,it would be quite easy to get away with it as long as one had sufficient control of the media, and then vilify the trait you intend to alter. Hitler managed to make his populace believe in genocide, so it's certainly doable.

No, my question is why people see the individual a more important than the group? If you were stuck on a mountain with a hiking group, and you were going to starve, would you kill one man so as the rest could eat? If a super-contagious disease was spreading across Africa would you bomb the infected countries to save the rest of the world? These are difficult questions, and I know why they are hard, but I wonder what gives us the priorities that we have.

 

[tofulove]

i like my way more, you have 3 standers for people who are legally aloud to breed, ether, very very smart, very very physical strong, or a healthy balance of the 2,

 

[XJ-0461]

I'm against it. I too have a number of reasons why.

1) What gives people the right to determine what an "undesireable" characteristic is? What someone may consider undesireable could be looked upon as something good by someone else.

2) It's a slippery slope. While it might start with something like "undesireable = people with physical/mental problems" it could end up with "undesireable = people with green eyes rather than blue ones".

3) It's just dickish. And if someone does start up a eugenics programme, I'll probably be sterilised/killed.