Eugenics, realy so bad?

[Tulkas12]

Another problem is that we can't say what superior genes are. Remember, genetic fitness is relative; if we weed out the "bad" genes and then the earth's climate changes or something, and it turned out that the only way we could survive is with the now-extinct "bad" genes, well we're screwed.

Any eugenics policy would violate huan rights and Eran makes a good point.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Another problem is that we can't say what superior genes are. Remember, genetic fitness is relative; if we weed out the "bad" genes and then the earth's climate changes or something, and it turned out that the only way we could survive is with the now-extinct "bad" genes, well we're screwed.

There are some genetic disorders that are clearly detrimental. Cystic fibrosis, Trisomy 21, and phenylketonuria are a few.

 

[bathsheba666]

No, not bad at all. When properly implemented by strong, good men, it is part of a program for a better people. A lot of traits which cost a nation a lot and give it little to nothing in return can be weeded out.
Add in a common sense approach to allowing the right sort of people to breed (not those who will bring children into a miserable world where they cannot be supported, are exposed to abuse and deprivation etc) and we are on the way to bright, broad sunlit uplands of tommorrow!

The well-known liberal, Lee of Singapore was explaining a similar point of view to visitors.
The well-known intellectual, Princess Anne, replied:
"Well, all I can tell you is it doesn't work with horses"

 

[El_Machinae]

You're telling me that eugenics doesn't work with domesticated animals? Or that you can't breed out bad temperments in animals? I dunno about that.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Many genetic diseases can now be discovered at a very early stage of pregnancy, and then the parents can decide if they want this child or not. I don't think it's possible for anyone but the parents to decide, and neither would I want it that way. This is the only, self-imposed, eugenics i can approve of.

In theory, if you see a nation as a single unit, eugenics has its merits. But when you look at a nation as a group of individuals it becomes something dark and twisted.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

In theory, if you see a nation as a single unit, eugenics has its merits. But when you look at a nation as a group of individuals it becomes something dark and twisted.

And since I cannot look at a nation as an individual - we are all our own beings - it doesn't work out.

As far as genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis: how are they caused? Is it like sickle cell where one set of the gene is okay but two is a problem?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

No I think he has a point! In the movie Gattaca, the world is a mix of pure bred human's and completely natural humans. However in this world, employers only hired the pure breds because the pure breds were better than the natural human's in everyway, alotting natural human's to subservient tasks even if they were completely specialized in a particular field. Basically the natural human's were second class citizens.

There is the very realistic possibility that natural human's could live lives of second class citizenship if there were pure bred human's with perfect genes and all undesirable traits weeded out. I mean providing health insurance for a pure bred human would be some kind of economic insentive to hire pure breds over natural humans.

Indeed, and Soylent Green is people. A fictional film with a deliberate plot device is not of any instructional value, save if we go down that exact path.

If a proper eugenics programme is instituted, as it will be, then there will be no inferior specimens, or 'normal humans' after the first generation. It does not make sense to create supermen and then make them stand in line with the dregs of nature's spitoon.
Choose who breeds, and then weed out the elements that are undesirable, using a variety of methods including genetic engineering, eugenics, and birth licences. And if any fall through the cracks, they can be resettled.