Eugenics?

[Helix]

I don't trust human civilization enough to stand up to a global spanning cataclysm. Some people think that when the day(s) comes, that humanity will have the right stuff to pull through relatively intact. I don't, and for me it's that simple.

 

If we have an apocalypse on our hands, we have bigger problems than genetic diseases.

 

I'm sorry, i really am, that I'm not as sensitive to the individuals as I am to the long-term picture. Just let me leave at this, because we'll never agree on what consitutes immoral in this scenario. In the end, I am a naturalist. When I picture my ideal humanity, I picture a race with low population living in simpler ways, small communities living off the land, living a rugged life.

 

That's fine; we're not all the same. But if you aren't sensitive to future generations, I'd hold off on making decisions that could potentially affect them. And when I view an ideal species I view humanity made up of free agent individuals determining their own futures through their own self-reliance. But again, if you aren't disposed to being sensitive, which is fine, making decisions to affect humanity in the future isn't the best course.

[AzurePhoenix]

You're assuming that a genetic disorder can become, in the matter of a few years, widespread and cataclysmic. It actually takes many generations--one person gets it and slowly spreads it around with his children, their children, etc. Humanity would have advanced warning.

Not really, as of now, I don't think it's a problem, it porobably won't be a problem for centuries to come, probably longer. Hell, the disaster could happen sooner than my optimism believes, and we'd be fine, maybe even pull through relatively intact. But then again, maybe not. But how immediate a concern does it have to be before people take notice?

[Helix]

Not really, as of now, I don't think it's a problem, it porobably won't be a problem for centuries to come, probably longer. Hell, the disaster could happen sooner than my optimism believes, and we'd be fine, maybe even pull through relatively intact. But then again, maybe not. But how immediate a concern does it have to be before people take notice?

 

 

The thing is genetic diseases will not do in humanity. Genetic diseases are a natural part of evolution; an unpleasant side effect of genetic mutations. So, seeing as how no other species is extinct because of genetic diseases, I doubt we will be the first. I believe that the humanity is its own biggest threat; nuclear war, lack of renewable resources and the like will do us in long before genetic diseases do.

 

And even if they were a threat, eugenics is not the answer. The proponents are misinformed; the movement would not eradicate those diseases from humanity as genetic diseases are inherent to evolution. And the method of 'cleansing' itself is immoral, leading the atrocities by the Nazis and the United States. Eugenics was poorly formed and poorly executed by Galton and his ilk.

[jeskill]

I've just read this whole thread and I want to make a few general comments.

 

First, I'm completely against eugenics -- I think it would be a waste of our resources and money to constantly screen unborn children for genetic diseases. This is why:

 

It seems as though there are two main types of genetic diseases: those that are heritable and those that aren't. You'll never be able to get rid of the unheritable ones (e.g. those that are caused by unequal separation in meiosis) because they're not controlled by one gene and they tend to increase as the parents age. For example, Turner's Syndrome and Down's Syndrome.

 

As for the heritable ones, most of those are caused by recessive genes and those genes are practically impossible to get rid of in a population, as someone else already tried to explain. Just a reminder: a recessive gene needs two copies to be functional. Anyways, he gave a good explanation, I just want to add that recessive genes generally aren't under selection because they are "hidden" in healthy heterozygotes. (This is one of the reasons why we are so anti-incest: an incestuous mating has a high chance of producing a child with a recessive genetic disorder.)

 

Also, the lower the frequency of a gene, the longer it tends to persist in a large population. I mean, if only 10 people in North America have a particular recessive genetic disorder, the chances of them mating are few and far between.

 

If you truly want to rid humanity of genetic diseases, the best way would be to eliminate all the heterozygotes -- the people who are carrying the disease but don't actually have the disease. However, given mutation rates of genes, it's probably a safe bet to say that most, if not all humans are heterozygotes of some form of recessive genetic disorder.

 

And, I don't really see how getting rid of genetic disorders will help humanity. There are many different diseases that are potentially far scarier that we could get that aren't caused by genes -- e.g Avian Flu, Cancer caused by environmental toxins, Lyme disease.

 

You'd have a helluva time trying to convince me that genetic diseases are going to be the death of humans. In fact, I would rather we had those genes in our gene pool, because the greater diversity, the more chance humans as a species will have to survive what will be thrown at us.

[ydoaPs]

1. No, it wasn't MY point. My point is about choice. If you have a disease and you choose not to reproduce that’s your choice. If you are forcibly[/b'] sterilized, that's horrible. My argument is about choice.

You said nothing about choice until I called you on it. Nice try.

 

2. Insulting me doesn't further your case, and I wouldn't call that 'not knowing much about biology'. And if you are such a demi-god, can you tell me the difference? I honestly viewed the terms to be synonymous.

I wasn't making an observation. A "race" is more like a sub-species.

 

3. But how do those individuals with diseases hurt the 'better' people? If those people are so great, why don't they just mate with people like themselves?

They would hurt their children and their children's children, etc.

 

4. You negatively impact them by not allowing them to even be born. I view it as pretty bad for a person if they don't even exist.

So, you think condoms should be illegal and we should be forced to have sex 24 hours a day? Not doing either prevents children from being born. What is the difference?

You have yet to show me how.

Yes, we have. They get the disease. It is a fairly simple concept.

Right, I understand the goal of eugenics: the removal of problem genes from the gene pool. But I view forced sterilization, the main tool of any eugenics movement, as highly immoral.

As I said before, morals are relative and you have yet to show how it is unethical.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I wasn't making an observation. A "race" is more like a sub-species.

Or a breed.

 

So, you think condoms should be illegal and we should be forced to have sex 24 hours a day? Not doing either prevents children from being born. What is the difference?

You're strawmanning. Condoms are a choice. Being sterilized isn't.

 

As I said before, morals are relative and you have yet to show how it is unethical.

You need to learn how to read. Forcible sterilization is terrible. That's why people whine when they can't reproduce due to a disease. Sterilization by choice is fine, because it's a choice. I don't have anything against vasectomies.

[ydoaPs]

You're strawmanning. Condoms are a choice[/b']. Being sterilized isn't.

As I previously said, his point wasn't about choice until I called him on it.

[Helix]

You said nothing about choice until I called you on it. Nice try.

 

I wasn't making an observation. A "race" is more like a sub-species.

 

They would hurt their children and their children's children' date=' etc.

 

So, you think condoms should be illegal and we should be forced to have sex 24 hours a day? Not doing either prevents children from being born. What is the difference?

Yes, we have. They get the disease. It is a fairly simple concept.

As I said before, morals are relative and you have yet to show how it is unethical.[/quote']

 

1. Actually no, when I said about forced sterilization that implied a lack of consent -- a lack of choice. I did say it.

 

2. That whole issue is irrelevant; from now on we say the human species, I understand.

 

3. But that is making the inference that ALL genetic diseases are crippling, when for the majority, a somewhat normal life is possible. But genetic diseases themselves are natural, a direct result of evolution not working perfectly. So in a sense most people have some part of their genome not functioning completely properly so that means most of us are mildly afflicted by generic diseases.

 

4. No, we have to suffer before we reach heaven. But seriously, I understand your reasoning but, again, the issue is choice. If I have a condom and a willing partner then I choose when to have sex. With forced sterilizations I no longer can make the choice of when to have sex (that results in a child). The issue is choice. Choice choice choice.

 

5. That was actually directed to AZ when I was responding to her post. But yes, now you have shown your case at least.

 

6. Morals are relative, so why would you force them on people who don't agree ? And saying I haven't shown the downside doesn't make it true. I must have said how it is unethical at least three times. But since it doesn't get less true: Eugenics is unethical because it is an invasion of privacy on the part of the government. Forced sterilizations, obviously without consent, are highly immoral as they not only degrade the individual by sending the message that they are worthless but also grossly invade their privacy and take away the birthright to reproduce. Also, unspeakable horrors have been committed under the banner of eugenics -- not only in Nazi Germany but in the US too -- and they will continue if the social disease of eugenics persists.

 

In essence eugenics is high-jacking evolution and trying to add in a brain to natural selection. Neither work. Genetic diseases are a natural part of biology and are, as I've said, an unpleasant side effect of the evolutionary process. A human toying with that process is not only unethical for the above reasons but also is foolish. We don't know nearly enough about biology to understand evolution in its entirety. In fact many don't even believe in evolution. Yet some think they know enough to highjack it successfully. The whole ides is the absurd brainchild of a, thankfully, bygone age.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As I previously said, his point wasn't about choice until I called him on it.

That doesn't make Helix's point any less valid.

[Helix]

As I previously said, his point wasn't about choice until I called him on it.

 

No. I have been bringing up the issue of force, the implied lack of choice. Just because I didn’t say ‘choice’ doesn’t mean I wasn’t talking about the issue. There are oblique ways to approach any problem.

[ydoaPs]

4. No, we have to suffer before we reach heaven. But seriously, I understand your reasoning but, again, the issue is choice. If I have a condom and a willing partner then I choose when to have sex. With forced sterilizations I no longer can make the choice of when to have sex (that results in a child). The issue is choice. Choice choice choice.

so, it is about choice. what gives you the right to deny the potential life of a child?

 

6. Morals are relative, so why would you force them on people who don't agree ?

you are the one claiming it is morally dispicable. i havn't mentioned morals exect in what you quoted.

 

 

And saying I haven't shown the downside doesn't make it true. I must have said how it is unethical at least three times.

and in none of those times have you given an argument that hasn't been refuted.

 

 

But since it doesn't get less true: Eugenics is unethical because it is an invasion of privacy on the part of the government.

it is no more of an invasion of privacy than immunization is. btw, invasion of privacy is not in the constitution.

 

Also, unspeakable horrors have been committed under the banner of eugenics -- not only in Nazi Germany but in the US too -- and they will continue if the social disease of eugenics persists.

far more has been done under the name of God. what is your point?

[ydoaPs]

No. I have been bringing up the issue of force, the implied lack of choice[/b']. Just because I didn’t say ‘choice’ doesn’t mean I wasn’t talking about the issue. There are oblique ways to approach any problem.

did you even read the post i quoted? you were not talking about choice at all.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I should point out that I actually support neither side in this issue. I'm playing devil's advocate, attacking anything I see that I find incorrect or that is a logical fallacy.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

so, it is about choice. what gives you the right to deny the potential life of a child?

So then you're the one suggesting that condoms should be illegal, then.

You've missed the point entirely yet AGAIN.

 

and in none of those times have you given an argument that hasn't been refuted.

Via a logical fallacy of some sort.

 

it is no more of an invasion of privacy than immunization is. btw, invasion of privacy is not in the constitution.

a) Sterilization is completely different than immunization, and does not directly benefit the health of the person receiving it. It is also more intrusive then a needle jab.

b) the Supreme Court has decided that it is implied, so that argument is not valid.

 

far more has been done under the name of God. what is your point?

You're taking advantage of his religion to make an invalid point. Just because others are worse does not make eugenics better.

 

did you even read the post i quoted? you were not talking about choice at all.

Did you even read the post you just quoted? He said he wasn't talking about choice either.

[Helix]

I should point out that I actually support neither side in this issue. I'm playing devil's advocate, attacking anything I see that I find incorrect or that is a logical fallacy.

 

 

1. Are you mad??? Half of why I dislike eugenics is because it denies those children the right to live. Don't even try that

 

2. Actually you've made it clear what your morals are by supporting eugenics, just as I have made mine clear by opposing it.

 

3. When was it refuted? I must have missed that part. As a note, saying something happened does not mean it did. You have not refuted my argument about morality. More accurately, you have dodged it.

 

4. Yes it far more an invasion because sterilization takes away something, and in a horrible way. And the Constitution is irrelevant as I'm talking globally.

 

5. So? That doesn't make it right. Way to strawman that; I never said anything about religion let alone fighting for it.

 

 

I think the real question, as somebody said, is: How do the pros outweigh the cons?

[ydoaPs]

5. So? That doesn't make it right. Way to strawman that; I never said anything about religion let alone fighting for it.

not a strawman. your post was that eugenics has had terrible things done in it's name. that has nothing to do with it. i tried to show that with the example of god.

 

 

I think the real question, as somebody said, is: How do the pros outweigh the cons?

pros:

 

decrease in diseases of our species

decreases the number of children needing to be adopted

 

cons:

a few people get minor surgery

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

not a strawman. your post was that eugenics has had terrible things done in it's name. that has nothing to do with it. i tried to show that with the example of god.

Well, that's true, in a way. Just because eugenics has been used badly before does not make it terrible now.

 

pros:

 

decrease in diseases of our species

decreases the number of children needing to be adopted

 

cons:

a few people get minor surgery

Erm. Around 6% of people suffer from side effects, apart from forcing sterilization on them being immoral.

 

Let's say this: suppose the government decides to increase the intelligence in society. This will reduce the number of idiots in the world, decrease Darwin Award numbers, increase productivity, and so on. To do so, they will prevent idiots from reproducing. Would you think it unethical to sterilize people with an IQ lower than, say, 90?

[Helix]

not a strawman. your post was that eugenics has had terrible things done in it's name. that has nothing to do with it. i tried to show that with the example of god.

 

But I'm not disagreeing that horrible things have been done in the name of religion. That's an argument that isn't.

 

pros:

 

decrease in diseases of our species

decreases the number of children needing to be adopted

 

cons:

a few people get minor surgery

 

Minor surgery? Minor? Are you kidding me? FORCED STERILIZATION? I'm not going to even comment, that's so outrageous. I will say you have some serious gonads to pass of the kind of thing the Nazis did as minor surgery.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Minor surgery? Minor? Are you kidding me? FORCED STERILIZATION? I'm not going to even comment, that's so outrageous. I will say you have some serious gonads to pass of the kind of thing the Nazis did as minor surgery.

A vasectomy is a fairly simple procedure to undergo. It's not castration, mind you.

[ydoaPs]

Erm. Around 6% of people suffer from side effects, apart from forcing sterilization on them being immoral.

more than that get the flu from vaccinations.

 

Let's say this: suppose the government decides to increase the intelligence in society. This will reduce the number of idiots in the world, decrease Darwin Award numbers, increase productivity, and so on. To do so, they will prevent idiots from reproducing. Would you think it unethical to sterilize people with an IQ lower than, say, 90?

IQ isn't all a genetic trait; GENETIC diseases, however, are.

Minor surgery? Minor? Are you kidding me? FORCED STERILIZATION? I'm not going to even comment, that's so outrageous. I will say you have some serious gonads to pass of the kind of thing the Nazis did as minor surgery.

once again, you have no idea about how it works. a vasecomy is an outpatient procedure. you walk in and walk out. they do it in the doctors office. a bag of ice and a few days later, it is like nothing happened(except for being sterile, of course)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

more than that get the flu from vaccinations.

You can't. The flu virus uses a killed virus. It won't do anything to you.

 

IQ isn't all a genetic trait; GENETIC diseases, however, are.

IQ is affected by genetics. It is also affected by parenting--if your parents are idiots, you will be too. It is close enough to a genetic trait in that it can be passed on from parent to child.

[ydoaPs]

You can't. The flu virus uses a killed virus. It won't do anything to you.

tell that to the people that do get the flu from vaccination. it happens. they aren't all necessarily killed.

edit: my bad. fox news strikes again. i have to stop watching that junk.

no, you can't get the flu from the vaccine, but the vaccine is only 70% effective

 

IQ is affected by genetics. It is also affected by parenting--if your parents are idiots, you will be too. It is close enough to a genetic trait in that it can be passed on from parent to child.

what if the child is adopted? it is not close enough.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

tell that to the people that do get the flu from vaccination. it happens. they aren't all necessarily killed.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=510538

It's an urban legend. It's most likely an egg allergy, the placebo effect, or an other illness.

(Whoops, seen you've edited. 70% effective? Only because it covers against one or two particularly common strains, and others may still be going around).

 

what if the child is adopted? it is not close enough.

Then it will still be partly affected by his real parents.

 

The entire point of my example was not to provide an exact match of the original topic, but to provide something different based on similar principles.

[Idolator]

Let's say this: suppose the government decides to increase the intelligence in society. This will reduce the number of idiots in the world, decrease Darwin Award numbers, increase productivity, and so on. To do so, they will prevent idiots from reproducing. Would you think it unethical to sterilize people with an IQ lower than, say, 90?

 

of course not. why should thier 'right' to have children outweigh the good of all humanity?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

of course not. why should thier 'right' to have children outweigh the good of all humanity?

Because it's operating under the false assumption that all of them will cause problems and such. They won't. Not all of them will do any damage to society, have any problems, or anything. You can't say "everybody with a genetic disorder" or "everybody this dumb" should be sterilized, because many of them will not cause any problems or will not pass on the trait anyways. It's making the assumption that all of them are "bad" when that's not true at all.

 

(I really lured you into that one.)