The Case for Eugenics in a Nutshell

[Abaddon]

My question to the nazis that support this,

Offencive, in no way does this make me a nazi

is there proof that idiocy is hereditary.

Yes, given any combinations of environmental factors, a monkey will always be less intelegent than a human.

Do stupid people really have more kids, or just ones that dont have the opportunity to go to college.

Why are they in the situation where they dont have the opportunity? Bit of grey matter could have dragged them out of that.

 

[Grisu]

you're free to perform eugenics on yourself if you deem it necessary, but leave me out of it.
If you're talking about involuntary eugenics I'm against it for a number of reasons
1) it infringes the freedoms of the individuals to have kids if they wish so. furthermore it opens the door to abuse, after all who decides who is fit to have kids and who isn't?
2) no matter how smart we think we are we are a long way from seeing the whole picture. just take dogs as an example: sure we can breed them to better specific attributes, but history has also shown that a lot of specifically bred dogs are a lot more likely to get some freak diseases than your average street bastard. do we really want that in humans?
3) many of the greatest people had serious genetic or other disorders. where would we be if had never had them?

oh, and for what it's worth: I disagree with every one of the 4 originally posted 'facts'

 

[Brighteye]

I'm abhorred.

Why? Is it 'cos you is black?

 

[Brighteye]

Eugenics, as generally understood, is a government effort to improve the genetic stock of the population. You may argue all you wish about the greek root of the word never mentioning coercion or government in any way, but that's the meaning it has taken.

As for the "individual eugenics" you mention, while I have no moral objections to it, they just strike me as a silly idea. Only an individual with some serious issues would analyze a potential wife based on the quality of the genes, like he is selecting some cow to be the new breeder. "Sorry, can't marry you, your dad got bald too soon".

If one has the means to eliminate via genetic treatment(something which is today more science fiction than reality. the possible defects that his child might have, he should go for it. But if that's not an option, I don't see what's morally wrong about people with some disability having a kid regardless of the risk of the kid inheriting said disability. People with disabilities can have a fullfiling and happy life, and I would rather be born with some problem than not born at all.

Eugenics does not automatically imply force. If that's the way some people here understand it, then they're wrong. Look it up in a dictionary.

Most potential wives do something like that. You would not believe how many times girlfriends say 'We'd have very pretty babies'. It's scary. I'm not thinking of babies.

People with disabilities can lead a happy life, but can they benefit society more than a healthy person? Where do we get morality from? Society.
If society does not gain by having more disabled people, then it is perfectly legitimate, moral and everything else not to allow people that handicapped to be within the society.
This is best achieved by preventing such handicaps existing rather than finding ways to deal with handicapped people. One easy option is to screen babies for defects.

 

[GinandTonic]

Eugenics without coercion is a meaninglessly wide definition.

If choosing a pretty wife is eugenics what value does the word have?

The word has been tainted beyond recall by the result of its usage. If you mean genetic screening say it.

 

[Brighteye]

What makes less sense:
arguing about whether Nazi-style programmes of genocide are right or wrong (using the definition so many people assume)
or
arguing about whether selective breeding in the human population can be justified (even on a personal level) both morally and scientifically.

I think that the definition that Masquerouge has spent so much time explaining makes a far better topic.

I don't see that reducing variability is a bad thing when that variability is genetic defects. We want to remove them. It only becomes a problem when we start selecting positively, thereby removing everything that is not selected.
Removing genetic defects will keep everything not specifically removed.

 

[RedWolf]

Most potential wives do something like that. You would not believe how many times girlfriends say 'We'd have very pretty babies'. It's scary. I'm not thinking of babies.

Absolutely.. my girlfriend says that all the time!!

It makes me nervous though... because if she thinks we're going to have pretty babies I start worrying that maybe she's seeing a better looking guy on the side. God help any female babies that look like ME.

On a more serious note though - the old dirty sweater studies have given some indication that people are more physically attracted to people that are good genetic matches to themselves.. caused by pheremones etc... such that these "matches" are at less risk (genetically) of certain diseases and conditions.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Eugenics really that bad? I dont think so. The human race could advance at a much greater rate if we had artificial selection in place.

Oh, and PLEASE dont clog this thread up about Nazi's. Eugenics was an excuse for genocide, not eugenics causes genocides.

I disagree with most of Van Court's premises. He gives far more weight to intelligence in establishing civilization than is necessary. It doesn't take that much intelligence to create civilization. There is a natural tendency for humans to organize when there are large groups and limited resources. His notion that civilization is a matter of degree is very 19-th century Eurocentric where it was believed that the European civilization had achieved its height above all others. There is also no evidence that intelligence is declining. If that were true, technology would be stagnating, but in fact, is advancing even more rapidly today than in the past.

Be that as it may, I think that Eugenics, in the sense of modification of the human genome for good, is a good thing. In fact, it is inevitable. Once the technology for altering the human genome becomes practical, everyone will want to do it because they will want their children to get the best chance in life to succeed. Eugenics of 100 years ago was flawed in that it really had no clue about genetics, but thought it did.

 

[Masquerouge]

Eugenics without coercion is a meaninglessly wide definition.

Well I think the whole point of this thread is to show that eugenics, far from being the loaded word that people commonly use, is actually something personal, individual, that is perfectly acceptable to do. Every time you act on determining the genes for your kids, you're doing eugenics.

The word has been tainted beyond recall by the result of its usage. If you mean genetic screening say it.

Not its usage, its perversion. Genetic screening is part of eugenics. But if you want to use genetic screenings instead of eugenics, that's fine with me: do you then see genetic screening as a good/moral thing or not?

 

[Masquerouge]

People with disabilities can lead a happy life, but can they benefit society more than a healthy person? Where do we get morality from? Society.
If society does not gain by having more disabled people, then it is perfectly legitimate, moral and everything else not to allow people that handicapped to be within the society.

First of all, thank you for understanding what I'm trying to do here

Second, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with your wording. We should not try to prevent genetical defects because they do not benefit society, but because, if we can and have the choice to prevent them, it is immoral to inflict them on any human being.

This is best achieved by preventing such handicaps existing rather than finding ways to deal with handicapped people. One easy option is to screen babies for defects.

Yup. So we agree on the how, but not the why...

Be that as it may, I think that Eugenics, in the sense of modification of the human genome for good, is a good thing. In fact, it is inevitable. Once the technology for altering the human genome becomes practical, everyone will want to do it because they will want their children to get the best chance in life to succeed. Eugenics of 100 years ago was flawed in that it really had no clue about genetics, but thought it did.

That's a great two-line summary of all my previous posts

 

[Brighteye]

But why is it immoral? We're not inflicting disabilities on people by giving birth to them. We're inflicting life where there was none.

 

[Whomp]

So what would happen to an idiot like me?

On topic who determines what's civilized and right? Could it be said that the Guaymi tribe of Panama or the remote tribes in the Amazon aren't more civilized than us?

 

[Masquerouge]

On topic who determines what's civilized and right?

Just like every other topic, a combination of legislative elements, cultural traditions, and political influence. We have done that already (determine what's civilized and right) on a number of different topics, sometimes we were right, sometimes we were wrong, but I do not see why it should be any different.

Could it be said that the Guaymi tribe of Panama or the remote tribes in the Amazon aren't more civilized than us?

Only if you think the definition of a civilization also includes technological and scientific advancement.

 

[Panda]

What an amusing thread. While I find it perfectly acceptable form a grim/black humour point of view that stupid people shouldn't breed, it hardly fits into the framework of values of wetern democracies.

On topic who determines what's civilized and right? Could it be said that the Guaymi tribe of Panama or the remote tribes in the Amazon aren't more civilized than us?

Obviously the civ with the most culture points.

 

[Masquerouge]

What an amusing thread. While I find it perfectly acceptable form a grim/black humour point of view that stupid people shouldn't breed, it hardly fits into the framework of values of wetern democracies.

I take it you did not read much out of this thread? The consensus is that we can not purposedly improve intelligence through eugenics.

 

[Whomp]

Just like every other topic, a combination of legislative elements, cultural traditions, and political influence. We have done that already (determine what's civilized and right) on a number of different topics, sometimes we were right, sometimes we were wrong, but I do not see why it should be any different.

How very westerncentric of us to make this determination.

Only if you think the definition of a civilization also includes technological and scientific advancement.

It may be our definition but I don't think the Guayamis are too interested in our excel spreadsheets.

Obviously the civ with the most culture points.

And to think the Arawaks could've given the Chinese a run for the money if Columbus hadn't wiped them out.

 

[Masquerouge]

How very westerncentric of us to make this determination.

I think pretty much every society on Earth uses the same process to determine what's right and civilized?

It may be our definition but I don't think the Guayamis are too interested in our excel spreadsheets.

Note that it's certainly not MY definition. But I'm afraid I'm missing your general point about Guayamis and eugenics...

 

[Brighteye]

We determine what is civilised by examining how closely their values match our own. We might also take into account cultural heritage; the amount of history and accompanying accretions that the civilisation has, but this is a secondary factor.

We decide what's right as a society; society defines morality.

I think we could improve intelligence with selective breeding, but, as El Machinae points out, the failure rate in this mission would be very high. It would be tricky only to breed those who were entirely healthy and intelligent, because the degree of effect the 'intelligence' genes have elsewhere is a graded scale, and so someone may appear healthy but actually pass on genes that give children a higher probability of some sort of handicap.

 

[Veritass]

I think pretty much every society on Earth uses the same process to determine what's right and civilized?

Mainly because we have destroyed or at least decimated all of the "primitive" civilizations that did not have the same beliefs.

 

[Winner]

It is true that for most of human history, the social structure was made in order to promote the good genes.

Of course, modern medicine combined with welfare state has had a very negative effect on the overall quality of the human gene pool - we stopped removing the bad genes and we allow them to spread. Guess that's what makes us human, but we all know it is not sustainable. Let's hope we'll master the art of genetic engeneering soon enough to make our 'humanity' compatible with survival of our species

As for the question, I am for eugenics, but it can't be enforced. The concept is good.