Poll: Natural Selection

[Flatfrog]

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.

No, selective breeding and/or culling are about as far from 'natural' selection as it gets.

Anyway, no, removing the 'unfit' by either sterilisation or culling is just a plain bad idea. It has a certain logic in theory, but as others have said, the slope it leads to is way, way too slippery. Once you let that horse out, it's impossible to decide what counts as eligible for elimination.

A slightly greyer area is pre-natal screening (speaking personally we decided not to screen for any conditions because we didn't want to have to make that decision, but I think it's morally ok) and genetic testing of parents, with a voluntary decision not to reproduce. But even in those cases it's difficult - we decide to screen for Down's and it's fine, but then what if we start screening for congenital deafness? Deaf people have a full mental life and can live quite comfortably with their disability. And what about screening for sex? Any kind of embryo selection is fraught with moral difficulties - and I speak as someone entirely pro-choice.

The fact is that children with most serious conditions will die before reproducing in any case. Many abnormalities lead to infertility and anything that *doesn't* do that, then - well, who's to say what's fit and what isn't? If I'd been born in ancient Sparta I'd probably have died on a mountainside because I'm too small and weak. My skills as a mathematician would not have been considered valuable to them. And we can *always* point at Stephen Hawking in these arguments!

 

[Frission]

SOCIAL DARWINISM IS NOT EVOLUTION. GOD DAMN IT.

It's just seeking to apply biological concepts to sociology and politics. It's idiotic.

Genetics doesn't rarely have "good" or "bad" genes anyway. Making a genetically perfect ubermensche is just plain stupid.
New genes are only very rarely ?invented? since most of them are from putting together pieces of previously existing genes. Many genes arise from duplication and diversification of pre‐existing genes. So even if you have a alleles which could have a proficiency for Daltonisme, you could be a perfectly healthy and intelligent individual.

Mutations are just errors in the coding of the exon or intron. There are no individuals which will pass an increased chance for mutations, since most of the factors which increase mutations are societal

Social Darwinism relies on the concept of "blending inheritance":
? The idea being that offspring usually do look like an intermediate (or mosaic) between their parents, which also suggests that the entire population should become uniform (for some intermediate trait value).

This was disproved centuries ago by Mendeliev, who proved that trait inheritance does not work that way.

OT: I have no sympathy for Social-Darwinism and those who believe in it. It's vicious and it's brain dead.

If you truly want a better class of people, then have better parenting and access to better education. Those are the only ways to improve a population.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

We're already under selection. I do not see a need for artificial selection. Way too many ways to abuse such a thing.

 

[Frission]

/snip

A society which runs a society based on an ideal for a body type will quickly be fraught with disease and problems. Eugenics and the even more idiotic "survival of the strongest" attitude that Spartans took are inherently self-destructive and vicious.

 

[Frission]

Man, sure is edgy on the Escapist today. Can you feel the edge in the air? Like the blade of a knife.

Well to take the edge off, I'll ask if that's a reference to something or the other. It sure sounds like it, and it bugs me that I don't know where it's from.

I have no idea if the escapist is any more edgy. I generally dislike topics on eugenics, because I just personally despise them, but I don't think there any more hot button issues then normally.

 

[Duncan Belfast]

-snip-

Delightful satire of capitalism.

If a nation actually did that, I think even Andrew Ryan would go
"What the fuck, man?"

Anyways, I'm actually envisioning a society where everyone has their tubes tied or receives a vasectomy, and aren't allowed to breed unless they demonstrate that they would be good parents, in good financial standing, and have no horrifically defective genes to pass on.

People on the "no-breed" list who would otherwise make good parents get to adopt children, and people on the "no-parent" list who otherwise have good genes get to conceive, and then give up their child to suitable foster parents. They could still visit, and be involved in the child's life, but some people just don't make for good parents.

Downsides:
A lot of people don't like the idea of handing over the very right to use parts of their bodies over to governments.
A somewhat competent government would be required to run such an operation.
We would need a much firmer grasp of what makes for a good parent.
...among others.

Upsides:
Lots and lots of consequence-free sex, resulting in an overall happier population.
Stronger genetic strain, which results in fewer birth defects, and mental and physical disorders, which results in:
*Lower healthcare costs, as there are fewer hereditary diseases to treat.
*Overall happier and more mentally stable population.
among others.

You can genetically engineer a "master race" without forcing people who you don't want to breed to suffer. People who are unfit to breed still deserve to exist. I myself have accepted that I probably shouldn't breed. I honestly think more people would be willing to put their lives in the hands of an organization if more organizations demonstrated that they know what the hell they're doing.

Like a number of other topics, I think it's good that we can have a civil discussion about the pros and cons of eugenics without someone screaming NAZIIII!!

I'm also going to make a random prediction:
In the future, billionaires will find a new hobby: using their wealth to create their own bubble societies based on different ideologies, and then discuss them with their peers.
"So Johnson, how's your Neo-Communist society coming along?"
"Swimmingly, Matthews. How's your Zen Anarchy?"

 

[Dimitriov]

I chose other.

Because really all we need to do is let more people suffer the consequences of their own stupidity.

And stop moving heaven and Earth to keep people alive who should clearly have already died.

 

[zombiejoe]

Why should we be slaves to the human gene when we could be creating the human machine?

We shouldn't be forced to play by the rules of nature. We shouldn't need to stop people from being born because their genes might not work.

No, we need to use medicine and machines to fix whatever "problems" arise from someone's birth. We should be evolving humanity by our terms, not by turning into barbarians to satisfy the organic world.

Spoiler

does that make me sound like a bad guy?

 

[books of war 13]

Selective breeding won't be important in the future as I think a lot of people will take on conception treatments. For example here in the UK on the news just last week it said we are experimenting with the taking nucleus of a fertilized egg and putting into into another woman. This would mean the child would have DNA from 3 DIFFERENT PEOPLE, strange, but it would cut their chances of genetic diseases to almost nothing.

 

[Syzygy23]

Who gives a shit about genetics when we can put our brains in a superior robot body? Technology is the great equalizer, and I put my faith in cybernetics research to fix all our shortcomings and ills.

Why should we be slaves to the human gene when we could be creating the human machine?

We shouldn't be forced to play by the rules of nature. We shouldn't need to stop people from being born because their genes might not work.

No, we need to use medicine and machines to fix whatever "problems" arise from someone's birth. We should be evolving humanity by our terms, not by turning into barbarians to satisfy the organic world.

Spoiler

does that make me sound like a bad guy?

High five! Mother Nature does nothing except abuse us and attempt to kill us in horrific, often painful ways. The sooner we crush it under our carbon fiber robo-heels, the better. Seriously, nothing prompted the bubonic plague. Fucking nature.

 

[Sofus]

Disabled people aren't a problem.... people who are both mentailly, physically and financially fit to raise a child are ausually both willing and able to support their offspring, and if their child happens to be physically or mentailly disabled then it's parents usually end up making sure that the child doesn't end up being a burden on society.

The real problem are people who aren't fit to become a parent in the first place. The solution is ofcourse to impliment a license that is strictly regulated.

I ofcourse know exactly where this would lead, but I believe that the world would be better off if people who are drunks, addicted to drugs or violent weren't allowed to have children.



Why are we selling alchohol to people who become violent when they get drunk?

Why is it that we continue to put the same people in jail over and over instead of simply revoking their citizenship and kicking them out of the country?

Why is it that we waste resources on people who have no interest in being a benefit to the country they live in.

How about we kick out the undesirable ones that are already here and replace them with people who actually wants to live in the country.

 

[DANEgerous]

Well seeing as the first two options are in no way shape nor form natural selection but rather eugenics none at all. Because eugenics is an utterly unnatural, cruel, disgusting and arbitrary practice that tends to have far more to go with genocide than improvement even with good intent by it's very nature as neutral or even perceived harmful genetics may be utterly beneficial.

 

[Abomination]

While I agree there is a burden being placed on society to provide for and cater to those who, due to birth defects, are unable to care for or tend to themselves (physically or mentally)... I do not see it as being so much of a problem as to do demand the extermination of individuals.

I understand it's only fair if the family cares for the individual but often when the individual reaches their adult years the family will step back and the state will pick up the slack. It's a problem that can't be resolved without draconian measures.

Finding a way of stopping those defects from occurring should probably be our priority, rather than attempting to remove the immediate problem. I don't know if we fully understand what causes defects like Downs Syndrome or how to prevent them from occurring but that should be where we direct efforts.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

The individual rights of the human to life outweigh the possibility of stronger genetics.

There are so many problems with the concept of organized enforcement that don't even need to be gone into.

The worst part with the concept? Variance and mutations are vital for continued existence. Time favors the species most able to adapt to changing environments, not the species fixated on a perceived ideal.

 

[aggers]

i dunno eugenics is kind off a slippery slope aswell as it sort of happens naturally anyway

 

[Pyrokinesis]

Look, its one thing to do "human pedigrees (yes they do exist)" to supposidly make perfect offspring but that ignores one huge fact. Our reproductive process is no where near perfect, it is incredibly flawed and as our genes continue to split in this broken process we only produce worse mutations as a result. Natural selection reduces the odds of producing more by eliminating those who already have them, but it by no means makes them all disappear. If youll note the beneficial ones are the whole premise of natural selection.

But, thats not the point I want to make. The point I want to make is we are sentient beings who can see beyond just our bodies conditioning and as such we should be the masters of our bodies not the other way around. By now we should have already found a way to better fix our genes and our reproductive functions (both in offspring and in simple cell division IE cancer) But medicine seems to keep tumbling while technology advances indefinitely. Eugenics is a primitive answer to a complex problem and we have evolved as a society beyond its use.