Random Sterilization

[Sayonara]

I was responding to this, if you don’t think sharks have stagnated, we don’t need to argue the point.

Well no. It was just a round-about way of illustrating my last point, "Evolutionary changes aren't necessarily phenotypically obvious".

 

 

Agreed, but how can you be sure these pressures will result in selection that benefits the human species?

You don't. That's part of my point. No matter the source of the pressure, you can only find out (and be confident of your conclusions) after the event.

 

 

Modern medicine gives us a vast array of disease and pathogen fighting weapons, these disease fighting abilities are not dependant on genetics; the most genetically challenged individual may be able to get medical help that allows him/her to live long enough to reproduce, thus defeating natural selection.

That's not quite how it works though. You're missing out whole swathes of genetics like recessivity and so forth, and also ignoring the "genetically bad" effects of medicine, such as the increased resistance of pathogens to antibiotics, and the reduced expression of defences that were previously strongly favoured by the selective pressure of not having medial intervention.

 

 

One could argue that the poorer classes do not have access to modern medicine, but as you pointed out, genetics and class do not necessarily correlate, so there is no guarantee that genetically inferior individuals will be denied access to medicine through poverty.

This is true. Fun, isn't it?

 

 

I assume “intraspecific competition” is competition between members of the species.

That's the chap.

 

 

As I have already said, this type of selection is not always effective for the human species. For example, two groups of humans are fighting over some land, the more violent group wins and kills the other, they settle on the land and reproduce, increasing the over all number of individuals with genetic predispositions for violence. Humanity has been doing this for a long time but it’s hardly a noble way of life for intelligent life forms now is it?

Picking out an example of a situation where X does not happen does not demonstrate that X never happens. The effects of intraspecific competition on humans reach into every part of our lives, in a very literal sense.

I'm not sure why we need to concern ourselves with the nobility element if we are discussing selection. Is it because that while violence is (in this instance) selectively favoured, it is not necessarily socially desirable?

 

 

If we worked to discourage war and advocated intelligent negotiations (which we are to some degree), we would be decreasing the number of individuals with genetic predispositions for violence thorough a self imposed selection. This would not be a natural selection; it would be one of intelligent life, and it would benefit the species.

We do that already, every single day. Even if you ignore the fact that abating people's violent tendencies and then expecting the genetic basis of violence to fade away is Lamarckism, the problem is that a few hundred diplomats in meetings with other diplomats don't directly impact the population of the country they are acting in.

 

 

We don’t need a state imposed eugenics program, we don’t need random sterilization, what we need is people who make everyday choices with the good of the species in mind, not selfish people who makes selfish choices for the benefit of only themselves.

This is essentially the thrust of the Social Forethought concept I was discussing in the eugenics thread. For the Future!

[Pleiades]

I'm not sure why we need to concern ourselves with the nobility element if we are discussing selection. Is it because that while violence is (in this instance) selectively favoured, it is not necessarily socially desirable?

Essentially, yes. Just because nature selects for this trait does not mean we should allow it, because fighting to settle our disputes is not a noble thing to do, and ‘noble’ is certainly something an intelligent species should aspire to be.

 

 

That's not quite how it works though. You're missing out whole swathes of genetics like recessivity and so forth, and also ignoring the "genetically bad" effects of medicine, such as the increased resistance of pathogens to antibiotics, and the reduced expression of defences that were previously strongly favoured by the selective pressure of not having medial intervention.

My point was that modern medicine may be encouraging the selection of undesirable traits, or at the very least, not encouraging selection against those traits. It was an example of a human practice which interferes with natural selection, employed to strengthen my case for the implementation of other selective practices, in whatever form.

 

 

The problem is that a few hundred diplomats in meetings with other diplomats don't directly impact the population of the country they are acting in.

Most of the time diplomats don’t do a whole bunch that “directly impact the population of the country they are acting in”, but if they have helped prevent a war, they’ve probably helped prevent the selection for violent traits.

 

 

 

Well I guess the point I’m trying to get across here (I think there’s one buried in there somewhere) is that natural selection has a less significant positive effect on humans (in some cases, even a negative one) than it does on other species, granted, it does still effect us. And since it is less effective, we must begin to select for positive traits via other methods while discouraging the artificial selection of negative traits; they may be indirect methods such as education and they may already be in place, all I’m saying is we should keep them in place, and intensify them. While this is all fine and will certainly help the species progress, people also need to have a little “Social Forethought” (as outlined in the last paragraph of post #75) before they have kids.

Hopefully, at some point in the future, the individual will be able to make such reproductive choices. Until such a time I can guarantee the species will stagnate; we will see less genetic extremities and more mediocrity; in essence, the human species will be nothing but average.

Alright, perhaps I was being a little harsh here; the species might not stagnate, it will merely progress very slowly. If people had a little “Social Forethought” before having kids, i.e. reproductive choices for the benefit of the species as a whole, then we might greatly accelerate the progression of the species, both genetically, and morally. Which I’m sure you’ll agree, is a good thing.

 

 

So, to all you prospective parents out there, think about how it will affect the species before you have a child; have a little “Social Forethought”.

[Skye]

If we relied upon people having social forethought, we'd end up with a bunch of inherently arrogant kids.

[Pleiades]

If we relied upon people having social forethought, we'd end up with a bunch of inherently arrogant kids.

We would? Why would they be arrogant?

[Sayonara]

Most of the time diplomats don’t do a whole bunch that “directly impact[s'] the population of the country they are acting in”, but if they have helped prevent a war, they’ve probably helped prevent the selection for violent traits.

I really don't see how. The people who are killed in war are usually representative of the population at large, not just "all violent" or "all non-violent".

 

 

Well I guess the point I’m trying to get across here (I think there’s one buried in there somewhere) is that natural selection has a less significant positive effect on humans (in some cases, even a negative one) than it does on other species, granted, it does still effect us.

We don't really know that for sure (the first bit, not the last bit). I certainly can't think of any striking examples off the top of my head.

 

 

If we relied upon people having social forethought, we'd end up with a bunch of inherently arrogant kids.

I don't see why they should be any more arrogant than the current lot.

[Skye]

Well if you relied upon people to mate in accordance with how they perceived it would benefit society, then the more arrogant people would be likely to try to pass on their genes. It was just a joke.

[SurfSciGuy]

Again this is all harking back to mating for the "good of society". I really want to know what people think this is? I agree that it is unwise to bring children into this world that you cannot support financially, but I dispute any notion that people of "lower class" should not have children because they would be increasing the "lower class" or that people of said class are somehow genetically inferior as opposed to being the losers in our particular socio-political system. This is just denying class mobility which is very evident in our societies.

 

Our social "class" system in the western world is based on the ability to earn money - as far as I am aware there is no gene that codes for "earning money" and as there are myriad ways in our capitalist societies to earn money I'm not sure one could ascribe it to a meaningfully small set of personality traits, let alone genetic characteristics.

 

The other fact is that western societies need more children, we have an ageing population, which will become an increased social and financial burden especially if we have a dwindling number of individuals entering the working population at the other end. Discouraging individuals from having children would be a socially irresponsible venture at this juncture, regardless of intent.

 

Of course we should encourage people to think before they bring children into the world - it is only fair on the children - but we should not, as a society, attempt to influence individuals to never have children (or only to mate with certain individuals) based on a set of assumed principals, which have no valid pretext. Effectively we are blaiming individuals for being poor and ignorant rather than seeing this as a failure of society as a whole.

 

Humans are constantly adapting to their environment (or adapting their environment to them - we are not the only species that does this). I see no reason why we have assume that the only way for human progression is through the selection of certain genotypes. I would consider it a strength of our species that we are allowed to keep our gene pool artificially large with modern medicine - certain negative or disease traits might turn out to have positive effects in the future and may lead to the continued survival of our species.

[LucidDreamer]

On a similar thread the idea of using social forethought as a method of eugenics was proposed. I think that using social forethought as a method to weed out "inferior" genes in favor of more select ones is impractical and unethical, even if you could some how accomplish it without the use of force.

 

However, I believe that using social forethought to prevent future overpopulation would be a very wise move. In addition to preventing possible overpopulation social forethought would improve the quality of life of the society that used it by preventing many unwanted pregnancies. The first step in social forethought is education. By providing early and continual education to our children we can forestall many problems that would be more difficult and costly to deal with later on. The second step in this social forethought program is providing cheap or free birth control to everyone. Many unwanted pregnancies occur because some people can not afford or do not have access to efficient birth control.

 

A certain amount of both of these things are already being done in some countries but we should step up our efforts in countries where overpopulation could become a problem. Some will oppose increasing these programs because of religious beliefs, but religion should adapt to the changing world for the benefit of its believers. Social forethought should be the first program used before anything as drastic as random sterilization is considered.

 

Furthermore, the parents should control any change to the genetics of our children. By allowing the state to dictate who should or should not reproduce or controlling the direction of evolution we are setting ourselves up for a genetically elite-controlled society with a permanent caste system. A democracy where everyone is treated equal and each individual is given the ability to succeed based upon his abilities creates a content and successful society. We have made great progress in creating this society and we should not allow this progress to be eroded.

 

Any society that practices eugenics has deemed one individual to be more important than another and one life more important than another. Any society that practices random sterilization has diminished the value of life as a whole. After all, any social program’s purpose is to ensure the existence and quality of life of its people. It’s the qualities of compassion, altruism, and tolerance that define our humanity and allow us to live a relatively harmonious existence. We should strive to make all of our decisions with humanity in mind or we will not survive.

[Sayonara]

On a similar thread the idea of using social forethought as a method of eugenics was proposed. I think that using social forethought as a method to weed out "inferior" genes in favor of more select ones is impractical and unethical, even if you could some how accomplish it without the use of force.

The objective is not intended to be the "weeding out" of anything. It is intended to create a less resource-intensive, more society-oriented population.

 

There's a tendency to try and imprint the impact of this method upon our current society, which is somewhat fallacious as you can't expect an overnight change, and even if that did occur the resulting society would not be anything like the one we have now.

 

There's also a tendency to misinterpret what is meant by the word social in this context. It's more to do with behavioural ecology than ephemeral concepts such as class.

[LucidDreamer]

Interesting. I had to do a paradigm shift to understand where you are coming from. What I think you are suggesting is a sort of social evolution where each individual makes decisions based upon what is in the best interest of society and not what is in his own best interest. Also, the present society makes its decisions based upon what is in the best interest of the future society, eventually resulting in an improved society with a better quality of life. I like the sound of this "less resource-intensive, more society-oriented population" idea but I don't think that eugenics will bring about its creation or help maintain it after its been formed. Random sterilization wouldn't be needed in this situation because these socially-aloft people would be capable of controlling their population.

 

With this future society in mind I imagined a young couple wanting to have a child. But it turns out that the husband has some form of genetic defect that will be passed down to his children. With the welfare of their society in mind they decide to adopt a child from a couple that has a very healthy child instead. Then I imagined that this other very healthy couple decided to spend their lives producing as many children as possible for the good of the society. Also, since the first couple cannot produce superior children solely because of the husband they decide to break up and have the wife remarry a more suitable mate. I continued on with this and paradox started to emerge. Since, all of the individuals are making sacrifices for the society none of them are content. Also, the present society is always making sacrifices for the good of the future society so it never achieves contentment either.

 

I realized then that a comprise is needed between the individuals happiness and the happiness of the society. An individual should never have to make certain concessions for society as a whole. If the limit on the number of children each couple can have is needed to prevent overpopulation then so be it. This treats each person the same. But a society that encourages one individual to have children and discourages another has made a distinction between the value of their lives and their children. This reintroduces the problems with a resource-intensive society by simply making genes the commodity. The haves are no longer the ones with the cash; they are the ones with the superior genes. This inequality would disrupt the socially oriented population of the future as it would today's population.