Eugenics

What do you think of eugenics?

  • Total voters
    22
Instead of Eugenics, which would ultimately be fruitless (wipe out diseases? Where do you think they come from in the first place?), we should employ a two-child-per-family scheme in most of the world's biggest cities.
It's quantity, not quality, that I'm worried about.
 
Cellar_Door said:
we should employ a two-child-per-family scheme in most of the world's biggest cities.
It's quantity, not quality, that I'm worried about.
Click to expand...
Do you realize that in most Western nations, that would be increasing how many children they have?
 
Norsefire said:
From wikipedia,

To put if in laymen's terms, eugenics is basically breeding by natural selection. It's taking the healthiest, fittest, most genetically "superior" members of society, and breeding them, and discouraging the "inferior" from breeding.

The ethical issues should be obvious. First, when I say "superior" and "inferior", I'm not referring to race or anything. I mean, people who are genetically "stronger" or "fitter", or healthier, or however you put it.

The problem is, who decides what is "better"?

As for me, I think eugenics is OK if we are unbiased in how we implement it; ensure truly that people aren't discriminated on the basis of race or nationality or something like that. Then, we can encourage or implement the breeding of the fittest. The reason is because this can help push the evolution and health of our own species.

If you wish to read it more in detail, here is the entire page on eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Suggestions_and_ideas
Click to expand...

Norse, you realize that breeding doesn't work that way, right? Desirable traits never come in neat little packages in living beings. If you keep breeding the strongest animals over and over, you eventually discover that you bring out recessive traits. As there is no definition of "fittest" (see below) there are no two scientists who'd agree on "fitness" in every single case.

From a natural selection standpoint (which is *not* what this is, eugenics is artificial selection) "fitness" simply means traits that give an individual the ability to pass the more genetic material to future generations. That's really it; it's almost a tautology. It's impossible, sitting in a lab to look at two people and decide who's more "fit" from that perspective. It can only be determined retroactively. Prospectively one can only guess at the answer nature would have arrived at, and those guesses will vary from person to person.

When eugenicists use the term "fitness" they mean something completely different (as that, it seeks to encourage specific traits that are good for "society" or "individual happiness," "humanity" (which tends to be "the traits I, the eugenicist, prefer most") or some other criterion (often unspecified). Eugenics in the past has been overly optimistic assuming that you can breed smarter, stronger, faster, more moral people. The problem there is that genes don't work that way. Assuming you find someone who's superior in all those qualities, there will still be undesirable traits in his or her DNA. If you keep breeding the specimens who most excel in those traits, you will eventually wind up bring some of these undesirable traits (like hemophilia, weakened immune systems, and other problems) to the fore.

What you want is not eugenics in the traditional sense, but genetic engineering. You should strive not to breed the smart people with other smart people, but to change the genetic codes of the stupid people, in utero, so that they are smart too. You'll still encounter problems (as individual genes often control multiple traits, so flipping the genes for increased intelligence, may also (hypothetically) increase the risk of schizophrenia.

That said, who wants to live in a world full of smart people? Imagine we do learn to tinker with intelligence in a safe way. Every one's a genius, so who collects the garbage? Who drives the buses for a living? Which genius is it who has to walk through the sewer systems to inspect them for leaks and problems? There will always be dirty jobs, even if they change over time.

Maybe you could breed different "grades" of people. That may not seem fair, but you could always tinker some more to make the lesser grades happy with their jobs, and unhappy with other jobs. It would be a brave new world...or one of eloi and morlocks. :D
 
Last edited:
It would be hell on medicare and health care in general. When they considered genetic testing for health-care people got very afraid, although I'd be better off...I still disagree.
 
The best option for sucessfull eugentcs would probably be to revert back to "survival of the fittest" and/or Natural Selection.

If its man controlled eugenics the end result will most likely be flawed and fail miserably.
 
Pandaemoni said:
That said, who wants to live in a world full of smart people? Imagine we do learn to tinker with intelligence in a safe way. Every one's a genius, so who collects the garbage? Who drives the buses for a living? Which genius is it who has to walk through the sewer systems to inspect them for leaks and problems? There will always be dirty jobs, even if they change over time.

Maybe you could breed different "grades" of people. That may not seem fair, but you could always tinker some more to make the lesser grades happy with their jobs, and unhappy with other jobs. It would be a brave new world...or one of eloi and morlocks. :D
Click to expand...
I think your assumption that someone has to be dumb to work a "dirty" or menial job is not correct. Not everyone considers work the most important thing. Plenty of smart people I know seek a job that puts a minimal strain on them to free them up for the hobbies they consider really important.

All thru college and high school I worked various jobs. Seven-eleven, a grocery store, a factory, a lumber yard, etc. Being more intelligent than the average seven-eleven employee was no hindrance. I'd spend my time reorganizing the cooler, alphabetizing the cigarettes, organizing the back room, etc.

Same thing at the grocery store. Most of us were college students, pretty smart people. We'd spend the nights stocking the shelves and debating philosophy, politics, current events, etc. We had a great time.

I really don't see a problem with a society where everyone is intelligent. There are very few jobs that couldn't be performed more efficiently by someone with some intelligence. And just because we engineer everyone to be intelligent, doesn't mean they'll all be motivated to achieve at their job. They'll still be people too lazy to make the most of their natural abilities, who'd rather have a job digging ditches and get stoned when they're not working.
 
Dinosaur said:
I would not object to eugenics being practiced by couples who used technology in an attempt to have what they considered to be the best possible children. I would not object to abortion due to dissatifaction with some analysis of the embryo.

It is eugenic programs run by politicians that are abbhorrent. Almost anything run or regulated by politicians seems to become a mess.
Click to expand...

this is basically what i missed in my argument. providing incentives for the fit and strong to mate, means that someone has to decide who's fit and strong, and no doubt that will be handled badly.
 
madanthonywayne said:
I think your assumption that someone has to be dumb to work a "dirty" or menial job is not correct. Not everyone considers work the most important thing. Plenty of smart people I know seek a job that puts a minimal strain on them to free them up for the hobbies they consider really important.

All thru college and high school I worked various jobs. Seven-eleven, a grocery store, a factory, a lumber yard, etc. Being more intelligent than the average seven-eleven employee was no hindrance. I'd spend my time reorganizing the cooler, alphabetizing the cigarettes, organizing the back room, etc.

Same thing at the grocery store. Most of us were college students, pretty smart people. We'd spend the nights stocking the shelves and debating philosophy, politics, current events, etc. We had a great time.

I really don't see a problem with a society where everyone is intelligent. There are very few jobs that couldn't be performed more efficiently by someone with some intelligence. And just because we engineer everyone to be intelligent, doesn't mean they'll all be motivated to achieve at their job. They'll still be people too lazy to make the most of their natural abilities, who'd rather have a job digging ditches and get stoned when they're not working.
Click to expand...

I agree that smart, young people take menial jobs before their education is complete and as a stepping stone to get them started down their chosen career paths. I also agree that there are occasional smart people that take jobs that are completely intellectually unchallenging. In general, though, I think smart people find mindless jobs to be unsatisfying over the long term, and would find disgusting or laborious mindless jobs to be even worse. There would be exceptions, but I doubt there'd be enough exceptions to run our society efficiently.

Also, if people are lazy, why wouldn't we breed that out of them first? I'd rather engineer that out of people and make everyone productive. Better to make the smart smarter and the average more industrious, than everyone smarter imo.

Which is part of the problem with eugenics. Different people, different views on what to engineer into the future society.
 
Why dont we take the argument down a different alley, what is the best option for dealing with disabled persons? More specifically mentally handicapped, people who require more resources and time that could be spent otherwise?
 
amacsteeze said:
Why dont we take the argument down a different alley, what is the best option for dealing with disabled persons? More specifically mentally handicapped, people who require more resources and time that could be spent otherwise?
Click to expand...

"Best" is relative to he who is defining it.

It would be BEST resourse wise to completely stop supporting them. As the above described disabilities dont really offer anything back resource wise. If they were cars they would be considered "Lemons".

Moraly (also relative to he who is defining the morality) wise it probably wont be too popular to stop supporting them. The trick life plays on us called "attachment" keeps our species going regardless of ability. (in some societies) People value others and carry them because of "attachment" or some self righteous ego trick that makes them want to be a super hero. Either way its a biological trick to prolonge death.

The idea is eugenics would free up a ton of resources and human effort for use in other areas. In the long run eugenics will be worth the obvious moral/ethical problems. The end justifies the means sort of thing.

A simple question that is hard to answer because of the biological tricks your body plays on you is this:

Would you remove a disabled seed to guarentee all future seeds would be "perfect"? (or at least void of all currently known disabilities)

Basicly if you had a child and he/she was disabled would you remove them IF it ment that all future children of yours would be free of any disabilities?
 
Eugenics is what you do to mere animals, not wondrous creatures with "human rights."

With humans, we simply morally have to let most everybody breed.
 
I think there is little doubt that optional eugenics will be employed by people looking for an edge for their kids as soon as it is available.
 
Eugenics-Reasonable or Wrong

Eugenics is an idea or movement that has been around as long as humans have, not always held as a majority position, generally quite the oposite, but has gained some ground in recent years with potential population issues in the future along with diseases and defect. It focuses on a more selective breeding method with much more supervision to ensure that the future production is inclined to higher achievement and less physical/emotional obstacle. Chris Langan, considered one of the smartest man in the world has this to say about it: "People who wanted to have children would apply to make sure they have no diseases. Why do we have to do it through genetic engineering? Well, we have to let only the fit breed…. Freedom is not necessarily a right. It is a privilege that you have to earn. A lot of people abuse their freedom and that is something that people have to be trained not to do." So is this a step toward Nazi Germany or a step in human progression?
 
Quigly said:
Eugenics is an idea or movement that has been around as long as humans have, not always held as a majority position, generally quite the oposite, but has gained some ground in recent years with potential population issues in the future along with diseases and defect. It focuses on a more selective breeding method with much more supervision to ensure that the future production is inclined to higher achievement and less physical/emotional obstacle. Chris Langan, considered one of the smartest man in the world has this to say about it: "People who wanted to have children would apply to make sure they have no diseases. Why do we have to do it through genetic engineering? Well, we have to let only the fit breed…. Freedom is not necessarily a right. It is a privilege that you have to earn. A lot of people abuse their freedom and that is something that people have to be trained not to do." So is this a step toward Nazi Germany or a step in human progression?
Click to expand...

This is some strange mix between Nazi Germany and the novel 1984, in a way.

Beyond that, it doesn't take into account what exactly will trend evolution in one way or the other. I have read that some scientists (how many, I don't know) believe that our dependence on prescription drugs will eventually cause our offspring to be born with far weaker immune systems, and that the next step in human evolution will be a smaller, more frail being. And that's regardless of who breeds with who.

It's a very narrow view, is the point.
 
Eugenics is reasonable and necessary. It's only wrong when it's state controlled eugenics. It's fine if you don't want to mate with stupid people, or ugly people, or whoever you don't want to personally mate with.

It's not fine however for the government to issue for above their standard of beauty upon us, and to tell us who we cannot mate with. It has to be our choice. Sure the gov should give incentives for educated people to mate but thats not the same as sterilizing people.

It's 2008, we can change genes in a lab now, we can have designer babies now, the days of using sterilization are over.
 
JDawg said:
This is some strange mix between Nazi Germany and the novel 1984, in a way.

Beyond that, it doesn't take into account what exactly will trend evolution in one way or the other. I have read that some scientists (how many, I don't know) believe that our dependence on prescription drugs will eventually cause our offspring to be born with far weaker immune systems, and that the next step in human evolution will be a smaller, more frail being. And that's regardless of who breeds with who.

It's a very narrow view, is the point.
Click to expand...

I think genetic engineering is the best way, as soon as we perfect it, and can cure diseases in the fetus, then it wont be such a problem. But to say that nobody with any disease should mate would basically mean nobody would mate at all because everyone has a disease of some sort, whether it be asthma, or they wear glasses, or something more serious, hell Bill Gates wears glasses. I think if a person can afford to cure their offspring through genetic engineering, let them. And no I don't think Chris is right about freedom, freedom is a right UNLESS that freedom hurts other people.

It doesn't hurt me if two stupid people mate, unless those two stupid people cannot afford to raise their offspring. And also if two stupid people can't mate, well, the majority of the world is filled with stupid people and there just wont be enough smart people, so you see the problem? What ought to happen is we need to figure out what gene controls intelligence and make it a mandatory law to require all fetuses to activate that gene and have all fetuses be screened for diseases. I'm all for improving gene quality but lets be realistic, the way Chris wants to do it, it would take 5000 years or more.

The gov should be allowed to give tax benefits when smart people mate. Two people with masters degrees should get paid to mate. This would replace the current welfare system which pays uneducated people to mate. We could also encourage people who are mentally stable to pair up, but once again it should use cash incentive.

Maybe I'd want to have kids with a smart person I'm not attracted to if the government gave me some incentive to do so. Otherwise there is no incentive for smart people to pair up with each other. Why? Because people who aren't as smart are more attractive than the smart people.

Do you think the typical nerd wants to have kids with an even bigger nerd? That usually never happens.
 
Last edited:
TimeTraveler
Otherwise there is no incentive for smart people to pair up with each other. Why? Because people who aren't as smart are more attractive than the smart people.
Click to expand...

Wow are you wrong about that. There is nothing hotter than a smart woman. I suspect you aren't nearly as smart as you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top