Eugenics as a science

[Pleiades]

You know what? Forget eugenics, throw it out the window, it has too many undesirable things attached to it. Consider this phrase on its own, completely out of context of any prejudices you might have: “The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding”1. Now what is so bad about that? I think we can all agree that improving the human race is a good thing. Is selective breeding the right way to do this? I don’t know, but it’s a place to start.

 

Selective breeding to improve the human species doesn’t have to involve inbreeding. Instead of selecting for a particular positive trait within a small gene pool, we should focus on selecting against a variety of negative traits over the gene pool of the entire human species.

 

I’m all in favor of a better human, but society is in its current state is incapable of accepting and/or implementing a successful human breeding program on a global scale. However, the mores of society change, and eventually the idea of selectively breeding humans will become acceptable, hopefully we will have the understanding to do it properly by that time.

[Sisyphus]

The problem is we don't all agree that improving the human race is a good thing. The questions are: who's doing the improving? On what criteria? And who gave them the right to dictate reproduction. Don't get me wrong - I'm not absolutely opposed to it, and obviously it is possible for a culture to accept such an idea, since cultures have in the past. Sparta is an example that ought to be free of the negative connotations Nazism brought to the whole concept. It's just important to remember that there are ethical as well as technical issues, as Mokele makes clear.

[Pleiades]

I’m sure we could all find something about the human race we’d like to improve, but as you said, we don’t all agree on the same thing. I say that society is incapable of implementing a breeding program at the moment primarily because we can’t all come to a unified decision on what is to be selected for or against, and who will be doing the selection.

 

I’d like to think (although I may be wrong) that one day there will exist a governmental body/system that we can actually trust to make such important decisions. We’d probably have to fix most of the social/behavioral problems to get to such a state, so any selective breeding would probably be physical improvement (elimination of genetic diseases, improved immunity to disease, etc), but anyway.

 

Even if we could find a perfect, absolutely infallible group to make the right decisions to improve the human race, there is no way the majority of the population would submit to their decisions in our current social state. So yes, eugenics could be a science, but let’s just forget about it for a few hundred (or few thousand) years until the social conditions are favorable before we even begin to worry if it’s ethical or not.

[Mokele]

“The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding”1. Now what is so bad about that?

 

The 'controlled' part.

 

Instead of selecting for a particular positive trait within a small gene pool, we should focus on selecting against a variety of negative traits over the gene pool of the entire human species.

 

Well, two problems:

 

1) If it really is negative, then nature will select against it for us, as with lethal or disabling genetic diseases. No input is needed on our part.

 

2) If it's not currently selected against by nature, where do we get off claiming it's negative? Sickle cell is prett negative...until malaria becomes a problem again. Remember, seemingly negative traits might actually merely be genetic side-effects of traits that are beneficial overall, even with said side-effect.

 

I’m all in favor of a better human, but society is in its current state is incapable of accepting and/or implementing a successful human breeding program on a global scale. However, the mores of society change, and eventually the idea of selectively breeding humans will become acceptable, hopefully we will have the understanding to do it properly by that time.

 

Yes, how dare people resist the idea that they should have reproductive choices forced upon them.

 

Furthermore, it's futile. We're on the cusp on being able to geneticly alter adults; wouldn't that be better? It'd certainly be faster, and probably also more economical and efficient.

 

I say that society is incapable of implementing a breeding program at the moment primarily because we can’t all come to a unified decision on what is to be selected for or against, and who will be doing the selection.

 

What makes you think we will in the future?

 

Humans have always had one universal definition of negative traits: any trait others have that I (the individual) don't.

 

I’d like to think (although I may be wrong) that one day there will exist a governmental body/system that we can actually trust to make such important decisions.

 

It's not about trust, it's about choice. No matter how good my genes and my GFs genes are, we don't want kids, period, and any attempt to force them on us will simply result in us having no kids and a *very* fat pet python.

 

And how far would it be taken? Picking which couples get to have kids would be selective, but it'd work even better if you just assigned people to mate together.

 

so any selective breeding would probably be physical improvement (elimination of genetic diseases, improved immunity to disease, etc), but anyway.

 

Immunity is best at high heterozygosity, and strong selection reduces that.

 

Genetic diseases can *never* be eliminated by selective breeding, ever. Think about it, why do we have lethal genetic diseases. They're being selected against, so why do they exist? Because mutation adds these damaging genes in while selection takes them out. Eventually the two reach an equilibrium. Altering the intensity of selection might alter the equilibrium, but mutations will always happen.

 

there is no way the majority of the population would submit to their decisions in our current social state.

 

Pesky freedom, ruining everything.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

It definately takes away the people's ability to choose our mates. Sure, I want to marry someone intellegent, but I wouldn't appreciate being forced to marry another scientist, for instance. I know many scientists that are rather dull people, and besides, what if I want a partner that is different then me, so I can be with someone that can compliment my own interests.

 

Controlled eugenics, by selective breeding takes away the human RIGHT to choose your own "mate."

[starbug1]

Controlled eugenics, by selective breeding takes away the human RIGHT to choose your own "mate."

 

You are absolutely right here, selective breeding takes away from our right to choose a mate, but only if you do mate is this ever a problem. And the problem is that most people do. Raising a family is, in most cases, another stage of life. The fact remains that other people still reproduce as well, namely the kinds of people who would be counter balancing the world's population of genetically superior with genetically inferior individuals. This is why there is an equlibrium of traits, so to speak. Let's face it, there are a lot of people breeding whose line of genes should STOP there. But what can you do about it?

 

It was already addressed, if my memory serves me right, that some people feel that couples should have to take a test before they have a child or become parents for that matter. If it wasn't, then I'm stating it here. This, of course, wouldn't rule out teen pregnancy and orphaned children, but it would help some other problems, such as divorce, child abuse, etc. And this is where Martin's theory comes in. That people can:

 

1. do in vitro and implant only embryo that doesnt have the gene

2. use donor sperm

3. adopt

4. if the gene is only expressed in males, they can choose to have a baby girl (another genetic choice open to people)

 

I understand that this system applys to couple's wanting to rule out a genetic mutation, potentially harmful to offspring, though wouldn't serve effective to people without any defects.

 

Now to the point I want to make. Someone could always choose a preferred mate, which wouldn't necessarily offset selective breeding. Donated sperm can always be tried as a starter for selective breeding. This also creates test tube babies that may be without mothers. But then appropriate parents can be given, though if not, it does seem to look an awful lot like "Brave New World."

 

“The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding”1. Now what is so bad about that?

 

This isn't so bad as you would think, yet there are those who think this looks like nazi behavior, which even studying is something to look down upon. The study wouldn't even get by, let alone putting it into practice.

 

It's clear, then, that if we don't want another quasi-Hitler regime form of purging the undesirables and creating a genetically superior race, then there really isn't much choice for who you mate with. It's your RIGHT to choose, and you are free to mate with whom you please. That's what scares me. And we go nowhere because of it. We have the means to excel evolution and produce exceptional breeds of humans, and yet we haven't done so successfully. Here are the reasons why I believe we can't do this (and some of these may have already been addressed one way or another.):

 

1. a conflict of religions beliefs/cultures

2. no area/population large enough could agree on such a proposal. And while the government can't legally, I assume, create a hereditary program using eugenics, there would be little restrictions as far as laws and higher supervision go.

3. World, or national, relations are never so obliging or in good terms for this to work. It might even create another war from the conflict.

4. Take the example of the Spartans. The ideal characterist in play produces so small a number advantages and even might eradicate other, vital traits, and the number of people that yield the traits are so small, that it may prove to be impossible, or a very long time before any progress can be seen, and to a vast scale, hopefully without too many problems.

 

There may be more points to mention, but the main point is that, although we have the means, the technology, we, as a race, cannot go about it eye to eye. And it is my hope that sometime in the near future, humans can get past this, even though this is unlikely, because I think a lot of prospering can come from most aspects of eugenics, even if it seems too complicated and problematic.

[Pleiades]

It wouldn’t have to interfere with people choosing mates, or having kids. With the technology we have, a person who doesn’t wish to have kids can donate their sperm/eggs. The people who want kids could receive donor sperm and/or eggs if necessary. It could be arranged so that the donated sex cells would be chosen from donors with similar physical features to the parents. If done this way, I don’t think it would take much for society to eventually come to accept it.

 

The goal of artificial selection of the human race is an all-round improvement of the species. The main issues with artificial selection are: Is it ethical? What should we select for? Who is doing the selection? And can we do it without screwing up and inadvertently selecting a negative trait?

 

I think we could find an ethical way to do it. However, I’ve been thinking a lot and I’ve changed my mind about how it should be done. Selective breeding for or against a trait isn’t the best way improve the human race; there are a lot of problems with it. Instead, we could imitate nature and create artificial selective pressure in order to guide our own evolution (cash incentives are the first example that come to mind).

 

Selective breeding is saying “you WILL produce offspring with this person” and “you CAN’T have any offspring”, whereas applying selective pressure is saying “you would benefit from having many children” and “you would benefit from having no children”. Applying pressure allows people freedom of choice, and it allows us to change things gradually, and observe the results over a longer period of time, allowing us to catch and reverse any negative selections.

 

Selecting for or against a specific trait is a bad idea, it would be better to select individuals with many desirable traits, and select against those with few or no desirable traits. This would reduce the risk of indirectly selecting a negative trait.

 

You might ask: why would we want to guide our evolution, when we could just let nature take care of it? Why risk screwing it up?

 

The answer is that humans have already done things that affect our own selection, take contraceptive and fertility assistive technologies for example: those who nature would allow to reproduce can choose not to, and those who would otherwise be infertile can still pass on their genes. It’s great that people have these choices, but you can’t deny that they affect our evolution (well, I suppose you could deny it, but I don’t see the logic in that at the moment).

 

Say we have a hypothetical group of humans who will soon die out and are currently failing to due to their genetic makeup. Maybe they can’t compete with a more advanced group, maybe they are susceptible to disease, maybe they are too physically weak, or not intelligent enough. Because we are compassionate humans we want to help these people, we give them food, medicine, technologies, and we help them to thrive. That’s fine, compassion is good, we would be in pretty bad shape without it, but just because we save them from dying doesn’t mean we should encourage them to breed and create more humans which will have trouble surviving without help.

 

I don’t want to deny people the right to have a family; the family unit is the cornerstone of civilization, and is one of the most important experiences a person can have in their life. But I do object to people having offspring that will fail to thrive without the assistance of society.

 

It’s not nice; no one likes getting the short end of the stick, but natural selection isn’t nice either, if you have bad genes, you die, or at the very least you don’t get to reproduce.

 

Deciding who should be encouraged to reproduce and who should be discouraged is a tough choice, but I don’t think it is unreasonable to believe that we could come to consensus on it. It would take an immense about of thought, planning, and careful consideration, but it could be done.

 

I’ve probably made some sort of logical error in here somewhere, or forgot to consider something, but it’s almost 5 am and I want to get to sleep.

[starbug1]

I understand what you mean when our developments of contraceptives, gene therapy, and other fertility advancements have become an accepted form of technology. However,

 

The people who want kids could receive donor sperm and/or eggs if necessary. It could be arranged so that the donated sex cells would be chosen from donors with similar physical features to the parents.

 

Do you not see that the two points you bring up here are unreliable and very much an undersighted opinion of what should be accepted. Similar features--when it comes to your own kids, do you think people are going to say, oh, as long as he or she looks like us. You mentioned family was the cornerstone to civilization, when what this is doing is an outright offbalance and slow decline of the meaning you and I and others accept. People are more emotional and involved than that. There are more than principles at stake here. Let's face it, humans, or families, more specifically, average families, are usually better than ignorant when it comes to their own offspring. And I won't even go into the gene pool problems this causes.

 

 

 

If done this way, I don’t think it would take much for society to eventually come to accept it.

 

...we'll see...

There will be a lOOONG time of natural evolution in the human species before we see such a change occuring.

 

I am for studying eugenics and am positive when it comes to the possible outcomes, but when an opinion like this is so brash and vague, I can't help but shoot it down with criticism. You must realize--you might already--that humans in our current societies are unable, as a whole, to yet be swayed in their opinions, which, I might add, are sometimes unbelievably stupid and narrowminded, and are "primitive," more or less, in their ways of acceptance. The human race is an unworkable substance. Cultures, wars, religions, e.g.

 

I think we could find an ethical way to do it. However, I’ve been thinking a lot and I’ve changed my mind about how it should be done. Selective breeding for or against a trait isn’t the best way improve the human race; there are a lot of problems with it. Instead, we could imitate nature and create artificial selective pressure in order to guide our own evolution (cash incentives are the first example that come to mind).

 

This is too one-sided. What's ethical?

What are the problems?...

Outright disagreement is not what I'm alluding to. I want to know why you really think these things.

 

That’s fine, compassion is good, we would be in pretty bad shape without it, but just because we save them from dying doesn’t mean we should encourage them to breed and create more humans which will have trouble surviving without help.

 

Fact is, not everyone is compassionate; we don't encourage these people to procreate, it just happens. Like bad genes. They are still here, and why? It's because these people with unfortunate genes and birthrights are not in any way a minority and they prosper and reproduce. Ruling out such genes is what this whole topic is about. And to tell the truth, such families, a fraction of them, should not start families (a lot of them shouldn't be families to start), but they do it anyway, and it can't be stopped because it's not "ethical." The term "family" has been spit on, coming into the 21st century. There is a certain deterioration of what's right, and lack of thought about why? and consequences. Would you not agree that divorce, child abuse, alcoholism, as well as the lack of seriousness in religion (in some cases) is at a rise. If you say no, do some googling, the numbers are a disgrace:mad:

But it is my belief that compassion takes no part in such a radical propogation of this theory, like the one you take. What we do to help the diseased is in betterment for the 'now,' for profession and "monetary incentive," and for "our immediate future." In this, yes, we are compassionate. Yet how, I wonder, does this play into ruling out bad genes to excel artificial selection? You seem to take a strong stand on propeling these ideas of bettering civilization; however, you move to conservative ideals when you talk about hunger and helping the weak. This is more a stand on world peace, I would think. Your idea, to start, ultimately rules out these groups with unfortunate genetics. Reducing reproduction in some areas of the world is a possiblilty for furthering your points on making better humans from better traits. Facing the pros and cons, and debating them to their realistic and believable and moral values is what's hard, that's the short end of the stick.

 

Deciding who should be encouraged to reproduce and who should be discouraged is a tough choice

 

What are some of your choices (or characterists) for those on either side?