Nah, eugenics is quite... ineffective as far as I can tell. I see no benefits from it and it would only seem to instationalise descrimination against people for traits beyond their control.
Poll: Do you support Eugenics? (Poll)
- Thread starter Sneaky-Pie
- Start date
The pro-eugenics arguments seem to have 3 main reasons for why eugenics is good. I will try to address them here.
1. Hereditary diseases- While these are terrible there have been many breakthroughs in the past few years to treat and cure a number of hereditary illnesses and there is no reason to think these advances in medical science will slow. This effectively eliminates hereditary diseases as a reason to go through the effort of establishing a system for eugenics.
2. Hereditary IQ- Many people misinterpret a high IQ as equaling intelligence, and while the two do have a positive corollary they are not in fact the same. A much better way for increasing the intelligence of the least smart members of our race would be to establish a more thorough education system and a better system of protecting young children from physically and mentally harmful environments.
3. Speeding up Natural Selection- The "purpose" of natural selection is to have a species adapt to changes in environment, like reduced food supplies or the introduction of harmful elements such as new predators or dangerous chemicals from a volcanic eruption. While it could be argued that humans could be made to adapt to better suite our new urban environments a counter argument could easily be made as to how exactly that adaptation should take shape. Should we become bigger and stronger or faster and leaner or smaller or should we improve how our lungs deal with chemicals commonly found in the air of urban areas? These are things for chance to decide. The real trouble is in humans using eugenics to control the attractiveness of future generations, the results of this could reflect how pure-bred dogs have distinctive looks put frequently poor health.
In short there are other, kinder methods for improving the human race than eugenics.
1. Hereditary diseases- While these are terrible there have been many breakthroughs in the past few years to treat and cure a number of hereditary illnesses and there is no reason to think these advances in medical science will slow. This effectively eliminates hereditary diseases as a reason to go through the effort of establishing a system for eugenics.
2. Hereditary IQ- Many people misinterpret a high IQ as equaling intelligence, and while the two do have a positive corollary they are not in fact the same. A much better way for increasing the intelligence of the least smart members of our race would be to establish a more thorough education system and a better system of protecting young children from physically and mentally harmful environments.
3. Speeding up Natural Selection- The "purpose" of natural selection is to have a species adapt to changes in environment, like reduced food supplies or the introduction of harmful elements such as new predators or dangerous chemicals from a volcanic eruption. While it could be argued that humans could be made to adapt to better suite our new urban environments a counter argument could easily be made as to how exactly that adaptation should take shape. Should we become bigger and stronger or faster and leaner or smaller or should we improve how our lungs deal with chemicals commonly found in the air of urban areas? These are things for chance to decide. The real trouble is in humans using eugenics to control the attractiveness of future generations, the results of this could reflect how pure-bred dogs have distinctive looks put frequently poor health.
In short there are other, kinder methods for improving the human race than eugenics.
The question though, is whether human kind is now outside nature? With IVF making it possible for everyone to have children even a trait as (evolutionarily) horrendous as infertility can be passed down to the next generation. Not to mention the propensity for weight gain and all the associated health problems there. And genetic diseases. And cancer. Humans in developed nations aren't subject to any real selective pressures any more. With that in mind, it's reasonable to advocate genetic engineering as a method of genetic improvement.SckizoBoy said:
And that's a long way from enforced selective breeding.
One part of me says eugenics is the most bigoted concept ever thought up. However the scientist in me is saying we are currently breeding our own extinction by curing people with a genetic predisposition to cancer or other genetic illnesses. I know it sounds really horrible say that but every time we save a person who should have died according to natural selection we do allow faulty genes to remain within the gene pool. Once again, i know this sounds horrible but i also think it is the truth.
I am not against efforts at positive eugenics. You will find this described on Wikipedia and in various places besides; I know I didn't first encounter the term online.
The difference between positive and negative eugenics is fairly straightforward. Positive eugenics involves seeking to increase fertility in 'worthy' sorts. Negative eugenics involves seeking to decrease fertility in 'unworthy' sorts. To me, the difference is stark.
Negative eugenics has a nasty history, including such terrors as blaming the victim in cases of incestual rape, and sounds like a recipe for racism, class warfare, and all manner of evils besides. What's more, it eliminates diversity in the gene pool. Why bother doing that? I don't see a lot of benefit to it.
Positive eugenics denies nobody a right to breed, denies nobody fundamental rights if done casually and through incentives, and maintains the diversity in the gene pool as well as allowing humans to do what we do reasonably often: surprise ourselves. Simply, positive eugenics keeps options open, while negative eugenics closes them.
That said, positive eugenics can be done wrong as well, as it could potentially involve the aggressive pursuit of genetic material from donors, perhaps posthumous, who had no intention for philosophical/religious/political reasons of breeding or having these samples taken, and if a matter of requirement rather than encouragement is not only morally dubious (and a bit rude) but also somewhat cruel.
If nothing else, for no sound reasons, I would want to take some responsibility for any of my progeny.
Anyway, even with this little difference in mind, I'm still not sure how I feel about projects to make the Howard Families. (R. A. Heinlein, biyatches.) Anything can be done wrong, and some things have enough potential to go poorly that they're best left undone.
Caveat 1: This post will be lost in what is already 9 pages of replies.
Caveat 2: It will be lost because I don't expect anybody else to do what I refused to do, namely read 9 pages of replies.
The difference between positive and negative eugenics is fairly straightforward. Positive eugenics involves seeking to increase fertility in 'worthy' sorts. Negative eugenics involves seeking to decrease fertility in 'unworthy' sorts. To me, the difference is stark.
Negative eugenics has a nasty history, including such terrors as blaming the victim in cases of incestual rape, and sounds like a recipe for racism, class warfare, and all manner of evils besides. What's more, it eliminates diversity in the gene pool. Why bother doing that? I don't see a lot of benefit to it.
Positive eugenics denies nobody a right to breed, denies nobody fundamental rights if done casually and through incentives, and maintains the diversity in the gene pool as well as allowing humans to do what we do reasonably often: surprise ourselves. Simply, positive eugenics keeps options open, while negative eugenics closes them.
That said, positive eugenics can be done wrong as well, as it could potentially involve the aggressive pursuit of genetic material from donors, perhaps posthumous, who had no intention for philosophical/religious/political reasons of breeding or having these samples taken, and if a matter of requirement rather than encouragement is not only morally dubious (and a bit rude) but also somewhat cruel.
If nothing else, for no sound reasons, I would want to take some responsibility for any of my progeny.
Anyway, even with this little difference in mind, I'm still not sure how I feel about projects to make the Howard Families. (R. A. Heinlein, biyatches.) Anything can be done wrong, and some things have enough potential to go poorly that they're best left undone.
Caveat 1: This post will be lost in what is already 9 pages of replies.
Caveat 2: It will be lost because I don't expect anybody else to do what I refused to do, namely read 9 pages of replies.
Maybe not for "desirable" heritable characteristics (who would get to decide what's desirable, anyway? A group of biased scientists? A government-funded study? Hollywood? The megacorps funding the project?)
If anything, I'd rather see it for economic "classes". It seems people with much lower incomes are MUCH more likely to pop 'em out (and since the parent(s) have thin financial means already, the kid doesn't have a good chance of improving the situation for themselves... taking into account the school systems available in the poorest areas, and how much is continually cut from them). The well-to-do seem to have the awareness that it's a better idea to have one, -maybe- two kids these days... what with kids demanding more and more expensive gadgets, schools shirking more of the financial responsibility to the parents (paying to ride the school's buses was unheard of when I was growing up), and college expenses are still high.
Granted I don't think ANY of it would ever happen (at least with the public being aware of it), everyone would be too afraid of the ethics of it, and stepping on anyone's easily-emotionally-injured toes.
Let the flaming begin. *dons flame-retardant suit*
If anything, I'd rather see it for economic "classes". It seems people with much lower incomes are MUCH more likely to pop 'em out (and since the parent(s) have thin financial means already, the kid doesn't have a good chance of improving the situation for themselves... taking into account the school systems available in the poorest areas, and how much is continually cut from them). The well-to-do seem to have the awareness that it's a better idea to have one, -maybe- two kids these days... what with kids demanding more and more expensive gadgets, schools shirking more of the financial responsibility to the parents (paying to ride the school's buses was unheard of when I was growing up), and college expenses are still high.
Granted I don't think ANY of it would ever happen (at least with the public being aware of it), everyone would be too afraid of the ethics of it, and stepping on anyone's easily-emotionally-injured toes.
Let the flaming begin. *dons flame-retardant suit*
Here's what I think: We don't need a program to control who breeds who. We just need a program to STOP some people. And don't think that I'm intentionally ragging on people either. Just simply, without even making fun of stupid people, I turn you to The House of Usher. That is a GOOD reason to branch out.
I believe in responsible breeding, only good people with good biology and the ability to raise an infant to adulthood well should be given permission to make one. If that is believing in eugenics then I guess that's that. Breeding should be a privilege not a fucking right. Over breeding of the unfit and irresponsible has lead to the general population of North America being dumb as pigshit.
but thats the thing though...we arnt running around the wild anymore....we have the tech and medicine to cure many diseases...gentic or otherwiseLeafofStone said:
evolutuon doesnt need to apply (and Im pretty sure we arnt going extint anytime soon)
Crankytoad's post (a more in-depth explanation of eugenics as a whole, and not merely the commonly understood "controlled breeding" method) is right on. Indeed, I sincerely pray for things like commonplace gene therapy and safe retro-viral engineering, as I want my children to be able to escape any genetic disorders I might pass on.
However, the original poster chose the more limited definition of eugenics as a type of controlled breeding. Not knowing if that was their intent or an oversight, I voted based the definition presented (that is, I said "No"). In addition to a belief that children should be born out of love, there is also the nagging question of what traits might be eliminated, and what traits might be prized above all others.
However, the original poster chose the more limited definition of eugenics as a type of controlled breeding. Not knowing if that was their intent or an oversight, I voted based the definition presented (that is, I said "No"). In addition to a belief that children should be born out of love, there is also the nagging question of what traits might be eliminated, and what traits might be prized above all others.
from what I understand its not "pre birth screening" or messing around with the featus..its simply preventing some people unable to breedDark2003 said:
and its completley stupid...who decided such a thing? how do you implement it? now pre birth screening..getting rid of stuff before birth seems much more ethical
...I dont know about the gay part...makes it sound like some kind of disease..and why do epople opoase gayness? religious veiws? makes them feel uncomfortable?JambalayaBob said:
is gayness somhow inferior because they cant breed? why is that an issue when everyone rants about over-population?
just saying If I were gay that would be kind of offensive
It's utter trash. Mankind isn't intelligent enough to engineer itself.
Every generation or so there seems to be a resurgence of the notion. It's always a failure, always disgusting. The only "eugenics" being used would be death and extermination. Getting rid of the dirty.
So sick of it. How could anyone with the mind to pursue higher education ever fall so low? You want to see what eugenics looks like in action? Open a history book and see WW2. Like it even needs to be said. If you want to see how mankind experiments with evolution, then check out what the Japanese did during the same time.
Utter trash. Spare me with the pleas for civility, I'm not buying it. You bring up eugenics arguments, you get the appropriate horns.
Every generation or so there seems to be a resurgence of the notion. It's always a failure, always disgusting. The only "eugenics" being used would be death and extermination. Getting rid of the dirty.
So sick of it. How could anyone with the mind to pursue higher education ever fall so low? You want to see what eugenics looks like in action? Open a history book and see WW2. Like it even needs to be said. If you want to see how mankind experiments with evolution, then check out what the Japanese did during the same time.
Utter trash. Spare me with the pleas for civility, I'm not buying it. You bring up eugenics arguments, you get the appropriate horns.
I don't support it, but I said somewhat because I would support not letting someone who could pass on an awful disease have children.
how about every family is allowed 1 child regardless of anything, and only seleceted families with the right... "stuff", could have more than that? It would work much more slowly than the methods mentioned in page 1 (restricting breeding outright excepting desirable outputs) and would allow everyone that "basic human right" that for some reason people cling to so badly.
Anything to tidy up the gene pool a bit would probably be benificial, (EDIT: not clense, or fix, just spruce up. Kinda like wiping the dust off your tv to make the picture more clear instead of messing with the settings)
See the intro sequence to Idiocracy for more info on why unregulated breeding could spiral out of control, (and to an extent already has)
Anything to tidy up the gene pool a bit would probably be benificial, (EDIT: not clense, or fix, just spruce up. Kinda like wiping the dust off your tv to make the picture more clear instead of messing with the settings)
See the intro sequence to Idiocracy for more info on why unregulated breeding could spiral out of control, (and to an extent already has)
