Poll: Natural Selection

[SadisticFire]

I've been thinking about the genetics of the human species and about how I've been hearing a trend about people with mental/physical disabilities seem to be getting only more and more prevalent, and about how we seem to make sure every human stays alive, whether it's drawbacks can outweigh the good, meaning it can completely remove Natural Selection to make a species stronger genetically, but it seems when the topic of having selective breeding or put to sleep, but it seems if you want to talk about this as an issue you will be regarded as a Nazi to the general population. But wouldn't the species get stronger in the future with it, and should it be done, is it still morally correct? I would say yes, and in an ideal world, by putting them to sleep so they aren't an economic drain, but that's my opinion, and I'm curious what others would say if they thought about it as well.

Edit:As several people pointed out that the proper term I'm probably looking for is(That I can't believe I forgotten) Eugenics Sorry bout' the confusion. Though I do think Natural selection might've been removed though so I guess title still fits.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, the obvious counter point would be asking you if you would put yourself up for judgement and extermination if you were found wanting. Who do you trust to make that decision? What counts as being worthy of continued existence?

Inevitably, this power would be abused, assuming its existence isn't an abuse in of itself.

 

[Lieju]

There is nothing wrong with selective breeding in humans, I mean, we generally do that, and want to have children with people who possess qualities we value.

But as soon as you start dictating what those qualities are for other people, there's a problem.

Especially when you start talking about killing people for it.
Generally, and this is just me:

mass murder = bad

Also, who defines what the humans should be like? What would make them 'stronger'?
Just look at the domestic animals and how they have been bred, and what problems they have, for example health problems caused by focusing on breeding for appearance, or lack of genetic diversity.

Also, natural selection isn't removed just because humans that would have died in the past don't die now because they can be treated. It just means those things aren't fatal anymore.

 

[Heronblade]

The term you are looking for is eugenics, but killing people you don't think are fit to breed is neither helpful nor necessary, and anyone comparing such to the Nazi regime would be quite justified in doing so.

Unlike most here, I actually am quite in favor of taking a more active role in what genes get passed on to future generations. Neither death nor forced sterilization is necessary to achieve this though. A simple tax penalty/credit system, or some similar means of incentive, can be used to similar overall effect, while still leaving enough genetic diversity that any bad decisions we make won't pigeonhole us.

Unfortunately, deciding what genetic traits are worth promoting/avoiding requires a great deal of impartial and highly educated judgment, something our leadership very sorely lacks. While I like the idea, I doubt there is any group around I would trust to run the program.

Also, natural selection isn't removed just because humans that would have died in the past don't die now because they can be treated. It just means those things aren't fatal anymore.

True enough, but at least in cases where the condition in question can be passed on, that survival can just mean that more and more individuals get to live with it. Fatal or not, a population that is more prone to various sickness is detrimental to all of us.

The problem I have with this argument is that we are already screwing around with natural selection, in an unorganized and chaotic fashion. But suggesting that we do the same exact thing, only this time with a little forethought and planning (ignoring the euthanization suggested by the op for the moment), causes people to throw a fit.

 

[gritch]

Well, the obvious counter point would be asking you if you would put yourself up for judgement and extermination if you were found wanting. Who do you trust to make that decision? What counts as being worthy of continued existence?

Inevitably, this power would be abused, assuming its existence isn't an abuse in of itself.

I'm going to second this notion and maybe take it a little further. The point of evolution itself in times of relative peace is to create as great a genetic diversity as possible. By having a diverse genetic pool a population is less likely to be wiped out in the next pandemic/natural disaster. If we artificially limit our genetic pool we might inadvertently be harming ourselves in the long run. Sure you'd likely see great short term results (by short term I mean several generations) but if an uncontrolled pandemic occurred we'd lower our chances of survival.

 

[tilmoph]

I could see an argument for economic extermination; every five years past working age (18), we compare your earnings to a national average, anyone below it for their age group gets killed via morphine overdose. If you want to have kids, you are means tested; if you don't make enough, no baby. If you're already pregnant, mandatory abortion. Any child found who was created without a certificate of means testing, or whose parents fall below the income requirement during a given test, is taken and put up for auction.The child so bought is then given a tattoo that marks them as.. oh let's say "parasite", which means that until they earn a certain amount, their owner can do what they want with them; treat them nicely, kill them, whore them out for cash, whatever. If you didn't want kids being eaten, you shouldn't have been poor, right?

This would ensure low unemployment (since all the unemployed people would be dead, plus limited population growth), little welfare use (death), increased average wage (all low-income jobs would result in death), little need for government assistance to even exist (with all the death), and unlike eugenic programs, which follow some group's ideal of humanity, this is based on results; anyone who can be middle-class or better can breed to their hearts content, anyone lower dies and their children also probably die. Or get raped over and over until they kill themselves, whichever.

This seems like the humane conclusion to a libertarian state; as long as we're assuming no one below middle class is worth shit and is just a parasite, exterminating them and their offspring is the only solution short of paying a livable wage to everyone, and fuck that, that's commie talk.

 

[Scyimgeour]

Natural selection isn't even selective breeding in its core, the first point of it is survival, anything beyond that are the causes of natural selection. The reason we don't die as easily as we used to is that we have created more luxurious lifestyles, managed advanced medicine, etc. The wonderful thing about all of this is that humanity has become less and less active and due to low-risk ways of life, less exposed to diseases (e.g. your immune systems will forever stay lvl 5 pokemons, so to speak). Combining all of this, we're driving ourselves to become weaker while trying to fight around that with intelligence. This is going to outrun us some time, perhaps.

The point being that there's no way to re-create natural selection, because the breeding thing is something that we already unconsciously do and removing people manually is ridiculous (also, that's murder, not natural selection), because death by natural selection has to be random and completely out of our control. The balance of the ecosystem and environment is the one that decides what skills and attributes are valuable, and thus we could never impose and edict of natural selection in any society whatsoever.

So, yeah, that's a definite no.

By the way, removing hospitals, food sources, etc. would be a way of doing it, but that's just fucking ridiculous.

 

[Esotera]

You can't remove natural selection but you can certainly mitigate its effect through medical advances that cause 'weaker' individuals to survive and pass on their genes. Gene therapy is also an option so that the defective gene gets passed on but doesn't result in defective behaviour due to constant replacement of the broken allele.

My prediction for the future is that most offspring created through IVF methods will be screened for defective genes and these will mostly be replaced. So we'll engage in eugenics a bit, but it won't be widespread in natural births and will have basically very little effect on our collective genome.

Also, you could argue that the ideal aim of a species is to maintain a lot of genetic diversity by retaining as many different traits as possible. This makes it more adaptable to sudden changes in environment such as natural disasters (although technology is likely to be the determining factor for humans).

 

[Daystar Clarion]

That isn't what natural selection is.

That's called eugenics, the two words aren't interchangeable.

At it's core, we are all already a consequence of natural selection, it's not a trait that automatically means something positive, the fact we've developed to a stage where we can save those who would otherwise die, is in itself, a product of natural selection.

We don't need to weed out the weak, because we can help the weak, that's what makes us unique in the animal kingdom.

When people say something 'isn't natural', it's actually a load of bollocks. Humanity itself is a product of nature, and by developing to our current stage, we are still very much a part of the natural process.

If humanity wasn't meant to 'go against nature', then we wouldn't have survived long enough to get to that point.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I don't really think telling people they can't breed or that they have to breed with certain people is particularly ethical, and even then there's going to be disagreement on what traits are most important. Besides, genetic diversity is very important when it comes to things like surviving diseases and environmental changes as a species.

That said, I'm not opposed to screening for things like hereditary diseases, but that's pretty much it. The only issue I see with that is rich people abusing it and saying 'oh I want a baby that looks like this', which doesn't really sit right with me.

 

[Sassafrass]

I'm all for it.
You go first though. Then this entire thread and the comments that will be it will never exist.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

No sir, I don't like it. Not because of logic, but because it's kind of a shitty thing to do to people.

 

[Henrik Knudsen]

"Natural Selection" creates itself, it lies in its name.

If you meddle it isn't "natural" selection, you are just being a douchébag.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Oh, another obvious example, let us compare the people who have posted here to Stephen Hawking.

Do we murder Stephen Hawking (and other disabled posters) for being disabled, or do we murder everyone else in the thread who don't have a form of radiation named after them? Which, I'm guessing is everyone here.

Do we murder people who have mild Asperger's syndrome? What about those that have webbed toes? Should we murder albinos because they are more affected by sunburn? Hell, pale skinned people in general, let's rid the world of everyone without a certain amount of melanin.

 

[omega 616]

I've been thinking about the genetics of the human species and about how I've been hearing a trend about people with mental/physical disabilities seem to be getting only more and more prevalent, and about how we seem to make sure every human stays alive, whether it's drawbacks can outweigh the good, meaning it can completely remove Natural Selection to make a species stronger genetically, but it seems when the topic of having selective breeding or put to sleep, but it seems if you want to talk about this as an issue you will be regarded as a Nazi to the general population. But wouldn't the species get stronger in the future with it, and should it be done, is it still morally correct? I would say yes, and in an ideal world, by putting them to sleep so they aren't an economic drain, but that's my opinion, and I'm curious what others would say if they thought about it as well.

I kind of see what you're saying but wouldn't the genes not be passed on anyway? I mean are people who have down syndrome having kids?

My little theory on how humans are changing is down to the world we live in now. Back in the good old days when it was common to have a slave, there was no electricity or chemicals/werid science (not talking about GM, I am refering to things like "xanthan gum" put into food or how they put the bits BACK into OJ). My little theory isn't based on much (if any) science but I think messing with food like we do and having electricity constantly around us, such as power lines, mobiles, PC's etc that some of it is probably fucking with us.

More on topic. Where do you draw the line on what is weak and what is strong? Do I die 'cos I need glasses? What about amputees?

I do agree that "all life is sacred" isn't always true but condemning millions to death to make the human race stronger ... well, it's a little Hitler ...

I would like to take a peek at a more animalistic human society, all genetic weakness bred out or actively removed (like a test that if you score to low in, you're executed) but only a peek at it, just to see how different it would be. Would everybody be clinical and emotionless 'cos logic and rational thinking have took over or would there still be anger, jealousy etc.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I'm disappointed that most people in here is saying "No because no. Also you're a ****** OP." You guys don't want to say anything about moral implications, or that the gene pool will be fine without euthanizing the undesirables, or that it would be 100,002,013AD before the human race would significantly change from something that is happening today?

Spoiler: Hiding this because it's sort of long and without a good logical backing.

Natural selection is completely, well, natural. No one changes the outcomes, no one helps anyone, the strongest live on and Darwin etc.

When we start interfering with the tribulations of natural selection, by letting people who wouldn't survive long naturally and making them live, isn't a form of natural selection. I thought the proper term (I'm fairly certain this is a term or suchof psychology or demographics, and not biology) was 'intelligent selection', but Googling it shows that I made up that word. When a society chooses for a certain type of person to live because of their appearance, and not for their health benefits, that is 'intelligent selection' I am thinking of.

(Really, I'm thinking about pandas. Fucking pandas, man! They are a species that normally would've gone extinct if it weren't for the tons of "Save the Pandas" movements that have been going on for the past however-many years. It isn't natural selection that dictated the pandas live, it was humans interfering working to restore their numbers, based on... the looks, the ethnic debate, wanting to make a stand about the environment? Those aren't 'for the betterment of the living' reasons that the pandas lived, that was intelligent people making overruling decisions.)

I think, at least, that is what is happening with the people who live with disabilities. We aren't throwing out natural selection and saying 'dat shit old', we are making the 'intelligent selection' more prevalent. Natural selection still works, 'intelligent selection' is an extremely small sphere of influence in the future of our world.

Again, I could be unknowingly bullshitting all of you, I'm basing this on some third-hand information I recall from some books I read. Maybe it was Richard Dawkins The Selfish Meme.

What you are suggesting is genetic purity and eugenics. Another can of worms. I want to believe this thread is more about natural selection, so I'm not touching on that.

 

[Muspelheim]

No. Why?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg

Call me an impractical bleeding heart, but removing human elements that we reguard as "weak" is wrong. Almost everyone can contribute with something, even if their disabilities would make a lazy doctor or civil servant think that they wouldn't, and might as well be wheeled off to the bin right away.

Furthermore, talking about "natural selection" would've carried weight if we lived like we've evolved to, a hunter-gatherer nomadic existance in desert enviroments. But we don't. We don't execute people who needs glasses, for instance, because that is no longer a handicap.
We can look after people who needs more help than average. And we bloody well should.

EDIT: Furthermore, how do we decide which traits are bad enough to warrant a killing, and which aren't? Who should do that? And were to draw the line?

 

[DefunctTheory]

By and large, eugenics is not necessary. The gene pool is not polluted, its just larger then ever, leading to more examples of genetic 'impurity.'

On the flip side, I find some parents disgusting. The parents of Sarah Murnaghan, the girl who got two lung transplants and is now dieing of pneumonia, had an older sibling with the same diseases. So, thanks to these numb skulls that just had to have kids, even after they knew their genes were defective, we now have one dead kid, one dieing, and 2 adults who didn't get the lungs they needed.

Fantastic.

My friend and work (Well, where I worked until Tuesday) told me about a family he knew in high school. They had 6 kids. Every. Single. One. Had. Muscle. Dystrophy. As fair as he knew, not a single one made it out of high school.

 

[SadisticFire]

I suppose it is a very problematic issue that it isn't easy to tell who's stronger than the next, and without bias. Which is something I've been trying to roll around in my head to decide upon, and the only thing I can think of is if they take more effort to keep alive than they will produce in their life.

 

[Colour Scientist]

they take more effort to keep alive than they will produce in their life.

What does that even mean?

Wanting to put down mentally/physically impaired people because they're a drain on the economy just screams ignorance, to be honest.

Many disabled people have jobs and contribute to the economy, why not put down people on welfare instead? Surely, they're more of a liability to the economy.

Seriously, if you're going to try to sound edgy by endorsing eugenics don't use "burden on the economy" as a reason.

Also, unless you're a prime example of human physical and intellectual ability and someone who has never been a burden to anyone, I wouldn't go around throwing stones.