Anyone heard of Eugenics?

[luiz]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
As usual, I'll brand America the source of all evil.

The eugenics movement was an essentially American phenomenon. Hitler had no articulate belief in racial superiority before reading the works of some prominent American eugenicists. He stated that they had inspired him. We now know where the essentially German phenomenon of nazism coupled with American eugenics leads.

Now, I believe, Americans have thoroughly re-evaluated eugenics and cast it out, perhaps as no other people have.

You are beign totally unfair, Sean. Many countrys have had eugenic policys in the past(Germany, Sweden, Serbia, etc) and America isn't one of them.
Furthermore simply because this poster is an american doesn't mean that this is what the mainstream american think. There are people with this sick belief everywhere.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Syterion

In case this wasn't enough to incite a response, try this. We could say the top 25% of the population (in intelligence) are allowed to reproduce, and then we immediately lose most of the genes that don't promote intelligence very much. It also cuts out the overpopulation problem.

What overpopulation problem? The world isn't overpopulated. Anyway, the West certainly isn't. In Europe, so few people are having children anyway, that the idea of stopping them is just stupid. We already have eugenics. It's the Eugenics of the expanding middle classes deciding not to have children. The selfishness created by capitalism-fuelled materialism already act as natural eugenicists.The kind of people that you don't seem to like, are in fact dong the most to save their nations. Mmay they breed on!

 

[WillJ]

[Let me note that I have not read every word of this thread.]

I've noticed that quite a few people have talked about it being unfair to the "unborn children."

Uh, hello, there's no such thing as an unborn child. (Well, there might be, in a strange religious sort of way.) What the hell is an unborn child anyway? Let's go over how human life begins: a sperm cell swims over to an ovule and fertilizes it by exchanging DNA with it. Now the ovule is a zygote, and it eventually (assuming no complications occur) grows into a human. There ya go. There's no line of babies that exist outside of space and time that a sperm cell decides to pull out and say, "Ah, there you are!" and puts it inside the egg. A new life begins--yes, that's right, BEGINS--when the sperm fertilizes the egg. If you don't let that happen you're not being unfair to anything.

HOWEVER, eugenics IS unfair to the people who want to have children. It is not completely undebatable, however, whether or not humans have a universal right to reproduce and bring a new, possibly very troubled, life into the world. Most would say we do, and I somewhat disagree. But of course, with our current technology, we can't predict what future children will be like nor do we have any sort of complete grasp of human genetics. With the way things are now, and probably the way things always will be when you consider inferiority is a subjective term (just take Hitler's opinion of Jews and Aryans as an example--that's certainly not universal and objective), eugenics is not only amoral, it's a disaster. But again, all you're being unfair to are the people who want to have kids, not the kids themselves.

This is of course assuming that we're talking about eugenics via sterilization, not eugenics via mass murder. If not, replace everything I said above with a nice little, "Hell no."

 

[HuckFinn]

First of all Luiz, with all due respect, you're wrong and Sean is
right. Historically, America has had a very influential eugenics
movement, and Hitler definitely got influences from there. Read up on
it a little, and you might be surprised.

Okey. With some dread, I have been waiting for this subject to pop up
here. It is not one I want to tackle, but one I every now and then
must face.

Now that the time has come, I waited for the discussion to mature a
little bit so I could get the hang of the general mood. Fortunately it
seems I will not have to go against the majority opinion. Big thanks
to Fred, you've been to the point as usual.

To those folks who have dreams of getting rid of the "unworthy" and
"defective" among our midst... well... if you got your way, you would
just have killed or sterilized me. Congrats for the achievement. You
must now feel very proud of yourselves, having saved the world from
the scourge that is the imperfect me. Taking into account the severity
of my genetic illness, it is very much possible I would never have
seen the light of day, as you would most probably have "mercy killed"
me in the womb.

From time to time I have to defend my very right to exist against your
kind. You have no idea how strange it feels to have to do that in a
world that in general scoffs those who refuse humanity from people
because of factors that are beyond their control. A black person or a
Jewish person is not guilty of one's genes, but a disabled person
still is, for many, free prey... even if we live in an age where we
have much greater possibilities for actually helping them -- as an
alternative to killing them -- than ever before.

I would say there are three kinds of arguments that are often put
forth to justify killing or forcibly sterilizing me. They are the
"compassion argument", the "economy argument" and the "evolution
argument".

I find the compassion argument to be the worst of all, as it
masquerades to be something that it is not. It is often used by people
who are completely unable to see the disabled person in any other
terms than those of his disability. It does not seem to count that I
am personally happy with my life and active in it, that my parents
have told me they would not want anything else in place of me and that
I have a network of friends whom, I like to think, are actually
getting something from spending time with me. Otherwise they would
just hang out with somebody else, I presume. Oh no. My life still is
apparently so horrible that in their opinion it would have been better
for me if I had never been born...

It is not up to them to judge if my life is worth living or not. I am
the only person who can say anything about that.

Now, the argument from cost... I won't make the mistake of giving it
any legitimacy by meeting it on its level... I refuse to weigh a human
life by its monetary value. It can be said, however, that I do believe
the percentage of "significantly disabled" individuals will remain
fairly constant. On one hand, we have sporadic mutations which happen
at a natural, steady rate. On the other hand, advances in medicine
will increase the number of people who are viable, but I do believe
that these same advances will also help people at the other end of the
spectrum to lead lives that are more and more productive. Last, I will
note below that the 1930's idea of "degenerates" flooding the gene
pool is unlikely.

The evolutionary argument is flawed as well. As was said in a previous
post, we already have as good a system in place we could possibly hope
for. Mother Nature will take care of things as she sees fit, and some
ideologue meddling with the process will just cause a mass extinction
when a blonde-killing virus hits our exclusively blonde and blue-eyed
population... disabilities do not yield an evolutionary advantage, and
therefore it is highly unlikely that genes that cause them would
spread. However, if some gene does beat the odds and does spread,
there probably is a very good reason for it.

All the above also simply ignore the simple fact that we're talking
about human beings here. No matter how much you disliked that Down's
kid because he didn't fit your ideal, he's still a human being, just
like you are. Yes, you can accuse me of being a sentimentalist, but
I'd much rather be one than... well... you. Fred was very correct in
pointing out that just as much you would want to weed them out, I
would be just as justified in wanting to do the very same thing to
you.

By the way, if you're losing sleep at the thought of the Down's people
breeding, I can reassure you... they won't, because they can't. No
need to force them to a nice little doctor's appointment.

Suppose you didn't want to outright kill me, but you would want to
force me into sterilization. What exactly do you think I am? A stupid
farm animal? I am perfectly aware of the gene I carry. I decided a
long time ago that if the opportunity presented itself, I would choose
not to become a biological father because I don't want to pass this on
to my possible offspring.

This is a decision that is mine to make, not yours. There is no reason
to assume that simply because my DNA contains a specific sequence, I
should be made to lose a fundamental human right, namely, the
integrity of my body.

I do have some power over whether the children I might raise have the same
illness as I do, and that will be on my conscience. Nevertheless,
whatever the outcome, the child will in the end primarily be a person
and my child and not just some monstrosity that came about
because of my selfish desire to be a parent... but as I said, there are many kids in the world who need parents and I don't need to be actually making them myself. I do believe I would make a far better father than someone who demands their children fulfill their criteria of perfection, lest they deserve death...

I have a little mind-game for you who think it would have been a good
thing had I been killed before birth:

Would you be capable of killing me right now?

Whether you did it some 25 years ago or now shouldn't make much
difference. As a matter of fact, I would gladly volunteer for
slaughter, provided you did it personally and in public. We could even
try to find a jurisdiction where I could make sure you were not
accused of murder.

It would be interesting to see how many people could actually go all
the way to the point when they were personally doing the cleansing
they dream of.

Talk is cheap. Anybody really up to putting a defective out of his
supposed misery?

 

[Amenhotep7]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
As usual, I'll brand America the source of all evil.

The eugenics movement was an essentially American phenomenon. Hitler had no articulate belief in racial superiority before reading the works of some prominent American eugenicists. He stated that they had inspired him. We now know where the essentially German phenomenon of nazism coupled with American eugenics leads.

Now, I believe, Americans have thoroughly re-evaluated eugenics and cast it out, perhaps as no other people have.

We never had a Eugenics policy, and as long as all the right-thinking people of America are still alive, then by God, we shall never have a Eugenics policy. I am appalled that one would brand America as the source of all evil! I'm sure we make Hitler or Stalin look like Jesus, with your logic!


As I have said, Eugenics is terrible...Though makes an interesting society to read about in some Sci-Fi books!

Edit: You are correct, Sean. Right-Thinking people have cast aside Eugenics, but I am still furious you would label us as "the source of all evil".

 

[HuckFinn]

Just check out the keywords "history eugenics America" via google... gives some nice links.

 

[gael]

Read Brave new world by Aldous Huxley.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Syterion


The Nazi's killed large numbers of uncurable mental patients to free up space for soldiers. I know Hitler wasn't the best guy, but was he wrong here?

It is the core of fascism! If a part of the population decides that another part is 'not worthy of life', you are beyond the line of what is moral, or what is immoral. What you have is amorality!
IT is disgusting! Don't even think it is reasonable!

Wouldn't you like it if some people just couldn't breed? Wouldn't you feel safer if there were no convicted murderers or rapists out there? It would also make it easier to the economy to not have to feed and clothe these people in jail. Just kill them and you've removed someone who could put his/her parasitic genes into someone.

Well, here you show your immense ignorance. Murderers and rapists are not genetically made so! Bad education or other social influences is what make peopel do nasty stuff.
Teaching people eugenics is good, is such an influence

What do you think?

I think you are a fascist, if you seriously consider these ideas to be any good.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by WillJ
I've noticed that quite a few people have talked about it being unfair to the "unborn children."

Uh, hello, there's no such thing as an unborn child. (Well, there might be, in a strange religious sort of way.) What the hell is an unborn child anyway? Let's go over how human life begins: a sperm cell swims over to an ovule and fertilizes it by exchanging DNA with it. Now the ovule is a zygote, and it eventually (assuming no complications occur) grows into a human. There ya go. There's no line of babies that exist outside of space and time that a sperm cell decides to pull out and say, "Ah, there you are!" and puts it inside the egg. A new life begins--yes, that's right, BEGINS--when the sperm fertilizes the egg. If you don't let that happen you're not being unfair to anything.

As I did use this argument, I feel I must clarify my proposal under this reasonable criticism.

I actually agree with you that human life begins in the exact moment of fertilization (some disagree, there are those who defend that it only begins after the spine and brain are discernable in the fetus, others that it only begins after birth, right after the child has completed at least one full breath). But this is an incidental discussion, as we are not talking about abortion here.

While you are right that this would not be a “punishment” in the strict sense of the term, as there is no way to inflict neither physical nor psychological pain in the hypothetical prospect of a person, I still maintain that at this stance, we can digress from the conventional use of the terminology and accept that it is indeed to punish a future generation to impose a sanction that aborts it’s possibility of existence.

We can exercise care and worry about future generations, and in fact we do it quite constantly in the modern world, particularly when we deal with things such as ecology, or historical sites, for example. We understand that our acts will affect lives that may come to be one day. And I only propose that under this stance, extending this worry in a personal level is as justifiable as we do in a general level. It’s in fact unusual punishment to abort even the hypothetical chance of living of an innocent child, even if his/her conjectural nature does not permit the feeling of suffering that we traditionally understand as “punishment”.

Hope this clear up a little bit what I meant, and why the solution of forbidding the convicts to have children – this weird sociological eugenics – is plain unacceptable (among the other reasons previously given, of course).

Originally posted by HuckFinn .
Big thanks to Fred, you've been to the point as usual.

Thanks, HuckFinn.

And I consider your post here the most eloquent support of all the criticism I have made on this thread. People indeed like too much to talk out of their asses and forget that they are talking about real people, flesh and blood, that have hopes, wishes, that bleeds like the rest of us. And it’s way to easy to play pragmatic and try to “cut losses” with people as if people were some sort of thing, as if we could deal with human life with some sort of shortsighted logistic that does not take our subjectivism in count.

It’s a whole other thing when we are forced to look someone else in the face and say that they are unworthy of living, that they must die. And what you did was to force the defenders of eugenics to face the wrongness and the perils of their ideas by showing them what would it take to really do it.

This is it, guys, what I was talking about. Someone with a disability, but that loves life anyway. Anyone dares tell him with a straight face that he does not know better, that he would be better if he were dead? Now that you can understand the harsh demands of eugenics, how it means to label people as unworthy and mutilate them, can you see how terribly wrong it is?

Thank you, Huckfinn, because this post of yours was a great exercise of empathy, and in my personal life philosophy, lack of empathy is the source of all the evils of the world. It’s far easier to judge and condemn people whose pains we do not understand. So it was great of you to educate those who were in need.

Regards .

 

[samildanach]

Originally posted by Stapel
It is the core of fascism!

No it isn't. People often make this mistake as Eugenics involves controlled breeding programmes - as soon as they see the word "controlled" they jump to the conclusion that Eugenics is inherently Fascist.
Eugenics is the science of genetically manipulating a population through controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of a heritable desirable trait. In the example brought up by Syterion, that of intelligence, if it were implemented would lead to a population that are harder to control ( as intelligent people are somewhat contrary and they are also generally more aggressive ) and that is not desirable from a Fascist point of view.
Also Eugenics as Fred has already pointed out would lead to a stratification of the target population with some expressing more of the desired trait than others which would be anathema to the actual core of Fascism which is cohesion / monolithism.

 

[Stapel]

The way Syterion describes it... That is just fascism.

Though I can follow the way you describe the definitions

BTW: 'controlled breeding programs' sounds awful to me!

 

[samildanach]

Well as far as controlled breeding programs are concerned if Herr Darkshade wanted to mate you with some of the most beautiful women in Australia would you say no? I personally would try and do my duty
I would hazard that Syterion has recently been the victim of a crime. I would describe his post as reactionary rather than as fascist. But I really don't know what has motivated him to write what he did. All that would result from the program that he suggests is smarter and more vicious criminals.

 

[Stapel]

Well, that is quite interestting, what you write there. Isn't Fascism reactionary, almost by definition?

Anyway: The thought that criminals are born as criminals is ludicrous, me thinks.

 

[samildanach]

All politcal systems had their origins in people reacting against something or other. Reactionary just refers to people who react to an external stimulus/insult without letting their brains in on the action and they can be of any political persuasion (or rather shoe size.)

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
As usual, I'll brand America the source of all evil.

The eugenics movement was an essentially American phenomenon. Hitler had no articulate belief in racial superiority before reading the works of some prominent American eugenicists. He stated that they had inspired him. We now know where the essentially German phenomenon of nazism coupled with American eugenics leads.

Now, I believe, Americans have thoroughly re-evaluated eugenics and cast it out, perhaps as no other people have.

Winston Churchill was a fan of eugenics when he was young.

 

[HuckFinn]

Jack... yeah, that's an important point to bring out. Churchilll was a huge fan of it. He for example had these plans of flying crop dusters over areas in Africa and gassing the natives from them to control the population of the lesser races...

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Cactus_Jack
Winston Churchill was a fan of eugenics when he was young.

When Winstin Churchill was young, eugenics wasnt the dirty word it is today. Eugenics has two aspects: a moral and a scientific one. Morally, a breeding program to create superior humans is detestable. Scientically, its no big deal really, humans can be bred for certain characteristics just like dogs, cats, cows and any other animal can. Eugenics is a a moot issue anyway. We'll be able to create super humans much more easily in the test tube very soon, and we most likely will. The same exact moral problems will apply to test tube eugenics as apply to the old fashioned eugenics however.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by FredLC
While you are right that this would not be a “punishment” in the strict sense of the term, as there is no way to inflict neither physical nor psychological pain in the hypothetical prospect of a person, I still maintain that at this stance, we can digress from the conventional use of the terminology and accept that it is indeed to punish a future generation to impose a sanction that aborts it’s possibility of existence.

We can exercise care and worry about future generations, and in fact we do it quite constantly in the modern world, particularly when we deal with things such as ecology, or historical sites, for example. We understand that our acts will affect lives that may come to be one day. And I only propose that under this stance, extending this worry in a personal level is as justifiable as we do in a general level. It’s in fact unusual punishment to abort even the hypothetical chance of living of an innocent child, even if his/her conjectural nature does not permit the feeling of suffering that we traditionally understand as “punishment”.

Hope this clear up a little bit what I meant, and why the solution of forbidding the convicts to have children – this weird sociological eugenics – is plain unacceptable (among the other reasons previously given, of course).

Well, I still disagree.

Not only is the future generation not being "punished" in the usual sense of the word, it's not being punished in any way whatsoever.

(Again, assuming we're talking about sterilization, not murder) what we're doing is if a person with a genetic disorder wants to have a kid, we force him/her not to. The future kid is not affected in ANY way because he/she wasn't brought into existance. He/she never existed nor ever will if we go through with it, and I don't think anyone will be able to convince me that you can somehow punish something in any way whatsoever that doesn't exist. (Of course, if we humans have a completely flawed defintion of time, which isn't impossible, maybe future generations do somehow exist, but that's beside the point.)

Your ecology/history/etc. analogy is not very good IMHO. In that case, if we didn't clean up the earth we WOULD be punishing future generations because they WILL come into existance and be affected by our actions.

But maybe we shouldn't waste time arguing; after all, we agree, just for different reasons. I say sterilization is wrong because it's unfair to the potential parent; you say it's also wrong to the potential child. Whatever.

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
When Winstin Churchill was young, eugenics wasnt the dirty word it is today. Eugenics has two aspects: a moral and a scientific one. Morally, a breeding program to create superior humans is detestable. Scientically, its no big deal really, humans can be bred for certain characteristics just like dogs, cats, cows and any other animal can. Eugenics is a a moot issue anyway. We'll be able to create super humans much more easily in the test tube very soon, and we most likely will. The same exact moral problems will apply to test tube eugenics as apply to the old fashioned eugenics however.

You should read up on some of the qoutes that winston churchhill said. Its scarry stuff.(You most likely have anyway?) Did he really change his mind on the subject? You cant telll cuase after world war 2, a leader of a western nation couldnt clam they where in favour of it. I think just cuase it was a old veiw that the right wing in the west used to hold doesnt excuse holding the view. Wrong was wrong 100 years ago.

DAMN my post didnt make sense before now i have fixed it.

 

[smalltalk]

I hope you can prove me wrong for being too pessimistic, but I fear eugenics is already here and practised in a small scale.

Though it's not done by sterilization.

Have you heard of preimplantation diagnostics?

Alan Handyside from England first used this method, which enables a diagnostic evaluation of an in vitro fertilized embryo, at the end of the '80. As the embryo divides to about 8-cell level, one cell is removed and its genetic dispositions analysed. If it contains a genetic defect or a chromosomal misdistribution, the embryo from which it was taken is destroyed. Only embryos, which are free of abnormalities, are implanted in the woman's womb.
...
Worldwide approximately 500 children were born after a PID: The diagnostic is practised in eleven states of the EU (Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Spain and Hungary).

http://www.dhgp.de/ethics/ethics08.html

In Germany, PID is forbidden . But a 2002 survey showed interessting results.

There have been lawsuits against doctors.

The couple visited a fertility treatment center to pursue in vitro fertilization with an egg donor. Unbeknownst to the Parettas, however, their chosen egg donor was a carrier of cystic fibrosis (CF), a serious genetic disorder for which a patient often requires surgery, medication and intensive care throughout her life.
...
The Parettas and their child subsequently brought a lawsuit against the doctors for failing to reveal the egg donor's carrier status and for failing to test Mr. Paretta for the CF gene

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20030521.html

But the wierdest example of "eugenics" must be this:

... two deaf lesbians in America were going round sperm banks, trying to make a deaf baby.

... they have now managed it twice, thanks to a friend with five generations of deafness in his family. They claim that they are especially well equipped to look after a deaf child, which I am sure is true, and had they adopted one such child, or 20, we would all be praising their goodness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4390038-103531,00.html


What I want to say is: we shouldn't feel to sure that eugenics will never happen (again). It has already started. - When you factor in the ambitions, some parents have about their children, I fear it will be on the rise.


PS:
Anyone has seen Gattaca?

http://www.all-reviews.com/videos/gattaca.htm