What are your views on Eugenics?

[cryingmale]

Do you believe Eugenics can ever be morally justified?

If so, are there any caveats that you think should be adhered to? (i.e. should you only be able to alter certain genes?)

 

Also, aside from your personal views on the ethical implications of Eugenics, what do you think will be the fate of Eugenics in the future of society?

[Daecon]

Can you elaborate on what exactly you mean? Which part of eugenics theory?

 

Can you provide some examples?

[mooeypoo]

Isn't Eugenics a "pretty name" for a sort of "scientific rationalization" for racism?

 

 

 

This is a real question, not an attempt to degrade a thread, btw.

 

P.S: I did a google search to see what Eugenics refers to today, and found something interesting. I know it's Wikipedia, but it does raise some interesting ideas to modern applications of Eugenics (though, I still get a bit of a bad feeling using that word) that might answer the question of "when is eugenics morally justified":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Dor_Yeshorim

 

If used to prevent genetic diseases in babies or in the next generations, I'd say that is morally justified.

I would try and find another word for it than Eugenics, even for the feeling of it, but.. I guess that does it for the moment.

 

~moo

[ecoli]

Isn't Eugenics a "pretty name" for a sort of "scientific rationalization" for racism?

 

I don't think eugenics is about a moral argument. It's simply something which we can pursue or not based on our own morals.

[YT2095]

I`m all for giving mankind a helping hand with what ails him, but I`m opposed to selective breeding (who plays the selector?) other than via natural means or for Plants.

 

I say let the old tried and tested "Natural" evolution do what it does best.

[brainslice]

Genetic manipulation as done with RNAi or gene therapy is a fantastic ideal. It will allow many individuals with seemingly uncorrectable genetic mutations the opportunity to lead successful, long lives. Selective breeding is a dangerous path to racism and bad science as we have seen in the past. There is a fine line to toe when eugenic policies are considered.

[John Cuthber]

Can someone let me know what the benefits of reducing biodiversity are for any species, our own included?

[Sisyphus]

Can someone let me know what the benefits of reducing biodiversity are for any species, our own included?

 

What about intentionally increasing our own diversity?

[Mr Skeptic]

Can someone let me know what the benefits of reducing biodiversity are for any species, our own included?

 

An increase in select traits. Some traits are simply better, but many are a trade-off. Pick a trait you'd like to see more of (or one you'd like to see less of), and imagine it was increased (or decreased).

 

Of course, increasing one trait comes at the expense of decreasing another.

[John Cuthber]

Pick a trait you'd like to see more of....

Ok; then wait until that trait is common and the counterpart is rare. Now the other trait has rarity value.

Further, imagine that circumstances change - whatever that might mean- Now the trait that's rare is the desirable one. Oh dear- you bred it out earlier. Your species is now doomed.

 

Since you cannot predict the changes in circumstances nor the requirements for "fitness" in those cirumstances you cannot predict what is a good or bad trait .

The only way to avoid killing off what might, in the future, be a valuable trait is to avoid killing any of them. That's why biodiversity is a good thing.

[Sisyphus]

That is a good argument for why natural selection is good at maximizing survival value, but I wonder if survival value need be our only criterion for "value" in general. If, hypothetically speaking, conditions became such that lower intelligence was selected for (far from implausible - our own high intelligence is an evolutionary fluke), then we would evolve in that direction. Yet most of us would probably consider that a "bad" thing, because we place a value on intelligence independent of it's usefulness in propagating our own genes. Thus we might decide it's worthwhile to intentionally mess with natural selection, even while being fully aware of natural selection's power.

[lucaspa]

Do you believe Eugenics can ever be morally justified?

If so, are there any caveats that you think should be adhered to? (i.e. should you only be able to alter certain genes?)

 

Also, aside from your personal views on the ethical implications of Eugenics, what do you think will be the fate of Eugenics in the future of society?

 

I think Eugenics is just stupid. It is based on faulty science -- in this case faulty evolutionary biology and natural selection. The basis of eugenics is that some traits are always "good" and should be encouraged and some traits are always "bad" and should be eliminated. In evolution, traits are "good" or "bad" depending on the environment. Each trait comes with a cost as well as a benefit. Natural selection is constantly evaluating the cost vs benefit of multiple traits and how they interact.

 

So eugenics assumes that we are smarter than natural selection. However, the data emphatically says we are are not. We turn to natural selection (in the form of genetic algorithms) when the design problem is too tough for us and we have no idea how to make something. We let natural selection do the designing for us. And we often end up with designs that we can't even figure out how they work, much less would have known how to make them.

 

"I'm really exploring what evolution can do that humans can't," he [Thompson] explains. "There are properties that humans have great trouble designing into a system, like being very efficient, using small amounts of power, or being fault tolerant. Evolution can cope with them all." Evolving A Conscious Machine BY Gary Taubes Discover 19: 72-79, July 1998

 

Now, if natural selection is better than us at relatively simple electrical engineering problems, why would anyone think that we would be better at natural selection in the much more complicated area of the entire human genome? Yet that is exactly what eugenicists do think.

[Mr Skeptic]

The power of massive amounts of trial and error, huh?

[MedGen]

I think it is an issue of timescales and that annoying human trait of impatience and apathy. Some people, albeit slightly misguided IMO, do still see the world in good and bad, black and white, such that on moral grounds as soon as eugenics or human genetic modification is bought up they will make a hue and cry about it. That would be the political right, conservatives. On the other side you'd probably have the more liberal/leftist mindsets saying that it is the choice of the individual or parents of the offspring. After all who are we to deny the life of a person who would otherwise be afflicted by genetic disease or predisposition to cancer or CVD perhaps.

 

In biological terms they all fail to realise the importance of a) natural selection doing what it does best, sorting the wheat from the chaff, and b) how long it can take for mutations/alleles to reach fixation in a population the size of the human race.

 

Humans are lazy, they don't want to have to calculate the costs of natural selection, they want the quick fix for their problems, and bugger the rest of the world and future generations. After all it's not their problem, they'll be dead.

 

Eugenics as a term and definition has been sullied and dirtied by its use to scientifically justify racism during the period of the 1920's-1960's. Eugenics however is not the eradication of genetic disease, it is the selection of desirable traits by another person. For a glimpse at a future where eugenics is the norm the watch GATTACA.

 

Germ line genetic therapy for genetic disease is exactly that, the gold standard for genetic disease therapy. It is not eugenics.

 

On a historical note it was when Galton's eugenics became popular that a lot of parents named their son's Eugene.

[lucaspa]

The power of massive amounts of trial and error, huh?

 

First, Darwinian selection is more than "trial and error". That is a demeaning soundbite.

 

Second, that "trial and error" is how humans design! Whether you realize it or not, the program of human designed genetic changes still relies on Darwinian selection -- "trial and error".

 

Darwinian selection is the ONLY method for gettting design. The issue is whether it happens within a brain or outside of one. Human design -- including that of the DNA sequences to insert -- is Darwinian selection.

 

Basically, within your brain you generate variations with your imagination and then run them thru selection against what you want. You pick the ones that seem to fit the criteria (will "work") and then make variations on those in your imagination and test them. Finally, at some point you decide to manufacture what you consider the best design. And then that gets tested in the real world instead of your imagination. In the case of DNA sequences, that real world would be the first individuals with the new sequences (genes). And then we find out if there are unanticipated effects on that trait or interactions with other traits (polygenic and pleiotrophic).

 

Then you begin the imaginative process again by imagining new variations within your brain. So yeah, the power of Darwinian selection is amazing.

 

Remember what Thompson said: human imagination is limited. There are some things that human engineers have a difficulty including. Natural selection doesn't have that limitation.

 

Eugenics as a term and definition has been sullied and dirtied by its use to scientifically justify racism during the period of the 1920's-1960's. Eugenics however is not the eradication of genetic disease, it is the selection of desirable traits by another person.

 

Which means it is only a matter of time before what are "desirable traits by another person" = racism. Eugenics is predicated on the assumption that humans are as smart as natural selection. The data says this assumption is wrong.

Edited July 2, 2008 by lucaspa
multiple post merged

[MedGen]

Which means it is only a matter of time before what are "desirable traits by another person" = racism. Eugenics is predicated on the assumption that humans are as smart as natural selection. The data says this assumption is wrong.

 

True, I'm not condoning eugenics in any way, it was a sort of pre-emptive nit-pick in case anyone tried to justify eugenics on the grounds it cures diseases.

 

Although I do think you do not give enough credit to human ingenuity by artificial selection. After all I wouldn't be able to eat grilled corn on the cob or enjoy the company of a very excitable and affectionate Labrador without it.

 

I agree there is no substitute for the ability of natural selection at what it does, but when it comes to time scales artificial selection gets the job done fast, just a bit shoddy and without recourse to future impediments.

[lucaspa]

True, I'm not condoning eugenics in any way, it was a sort of pre-emptive nit-pick in case anyone tried to justify eugenics on the grounds it cures diseases.

 

I know. I was agreeing with you. Eugenics may start out as eliminating diseases -- such as preventing people with Tay Sach's from having children -- but it won't stop there.

 

But even in the case of Tay Sach's, with eugenics you lose all the alleles of those persons, and many of those alleles are going to be very valuable.

 

Although I do think you do not give enough credit to human ingenuity by artificial selection. After all I wouldn't be able to eat grilled corn on the cob or enjoy the company of a very excitable and affectionate Labrador without it.

 

I agree there is no substitute for the ability of natural selection at what it does, but when it comes to time scales artificial selection gets the job done fast, just a bit shoddy and without recourse to future impediments.

 

You realize that artificial selection = eugenics, right? Eugenics is artificial selection applied to humans. As you said "Eugenics however is not the eradication of genetic disease, it is the selection of desirable traits by another person."

 

Artificial selection is the selection of "desirable traits" in other species by humans. So we practice eugenics on other species. And yes, we can change them and get sweet corn from maize and Labradors from wolves. But in both cases a lot of genetic diversity has been lost and both corn and Labs can only survive in the artificial environment humans provide. Since we cannot guarantee that sort of control over future environments, do you really want to practice artificial selection/eugenics on humans?

 

And yes, we are "clever" in artficial selection in terms of getting what we want. But we are still a lot dumber than natural selection in terms of sorting thru all the traits to get a good balance. Instead, we focus on just a few, because that is all we can handle.

[MedGen]

I know. I was agreeing with you. Eugenics may start out as eliminating diseases -- such as preventing people with Tay Sach's from having children -- but it won't stop there.

 

But even in the case of Tay Sach's, with eugenics you lose all the alleles of those persons, and many of those alleles are going to be very valuable.

 

I'm not sure if started out that way, but people may try to redefine it that way to justify it. True about conditions such as Tay-Sachs, this is where I think germ line therapy becomes the gold standard, the ultimate compromise? Although, as nasty as the progression of the disease is it very much highlights the danger of consanguinous marriages. But at the end of the day the incidence of T-S among high risk groups has sharply fallen since the introduction of extensive screening in the 1960's anyway. This I think highlights the importance of alternative strategies.

Once you've got PGD and germline therapy working in tandem, then population specific disorders, like Tay-Sachs and Gauchers, will no longer be the problem they pose today. But of course that involves the development of germ line therapy, something I believe should be a major area of research.

 

 

 

You realize that artificial selection = eugenics, right? Eugenics is artificial selection applied to humans. As you said "Eugenics however is not the eradication of genetic disease, it is the selection of desirable traits by another person."

 

Artificial selection is the selection of "desirable traits" in other species by humans. So we practice eugenics on other species. And yes, we can change them and get sweet corn from maize and Labradors from wolves. But in both cases a lot of genetic diversity has been lost and both corn and Labs can only survive in the artificial environment humans provide. Since we cannot guarantee that sort of control over future environments, do you really want to practice artificial selection/eugenics on humans?

 

And yes, we are "clever" in artficial selection in terms of getting what we want. But we are still a lot dumber than natural selection in terms of sorting thru all the traits to get a good balance. Instead, we focus on just a few, because that is all we can handle.

 

I suppose it is really. But how many scientists will call artificial selection eugenics when it applies to a bacterial colony, I doubt Richard Lenski considered himself to be practising eugenics when he set up his experiment for anaerobic citrate metabolism.

 

At the end of the day artificial selection/eugenics concerning humans is considered to be abhorent by a vast majority. Objections come on both moral and scientific grounds, fair enough. But I would point out, in lieu of Lucaspa's recent post, why do we tolerate eugenics outside of our own species. Is this a false dichotomy or humans being typically hypocritical. (Please note I have not particular opinion on this, I would like to see what others think of it).

[lucaspa]

True about conditions such as Tay-Sachs, this is where I think germ line therapy becomes the gold standard, the ultimate compromise?

 

I would call it a cure, not a compromise. Screening, as I think about it, is a form of eugenics. Fetuses that have T-S are aborted. That means all the other alleles are lost, too.

 

But of course that involves the development of germ line therapy, something I believe should be a major area of research.

 

I dont' think germ-line would work. Instead, if you could change just that one gene in a fertilized ovum or the blastocyst, then the individual would not have it -- including its germ line. This, IMO, is the legitimate area of ES cell research.

 

I suppose it is really. But how many scientists will call artificial selection eugenics when it applies to a bacterial colony, I doubt Richard Lenski considered himself to be practising eugenics when he set up his experiment for anaerobic citrate metabolism.

 

First, Lenski isn't doing artificial selection. What is happening in his cultures is natural selection. He didn't "set up" his experiment for anaerobic citrate metabolism. He set the experiment up for bacteria to evolve by natural selection or genetic drift. It's just that there was an unused food source in the environment. Lenski didn't do any selecting for individual bacteria that were able to make use of that resource.

 

Second, what people call it and what it really is can be 2 different things. We are looking at what the situation really is. By the definitions used, artificial selection = eugenics on other species. Instead of members of the same species deciding what the "desirable traits" are, the decision is made by a member of another species.

 

But I would point out, in lieu of Lucaspa's recent post, why do we tolerate eugenics outside of our own species.

 

Because morals don't apply outside your own secies. Morals are a decision on how to treat members of your own species. EVERY species exploits others to a greater or lesser extent. Let's face it, all animals exploit (eventually) plants for food. Artificial selection is another form of exploitation. Humans, because of their technology, are better at the exploitation than other species and do so at a conscious level. But a beaver (to use but one example) selecting trees to fell in order to create a dam (and the pond behind it) are exploiting the trees and changing the habitat to suit themselves. I suspect, if we looked into it, that beavers prefer certain types, sizes, and shape of trunk in the trees they cut down. That is a form of artificial selection. Not conscious on the part of beavers, of course, but they are selecting. Are they immoral?

[MedGen]

I dont' think germ-line would work. Instead, if you could change just that one gene in a fertilized ovum or the blastocyst, then the individual would not have it -- including its germ line. This, IMO, is the legitimate area of ES cell research.

 

I'm curious as to why you don't think germ line therapy would be a feasible option, barring moral objections. I'm sure there are many scientific barriers still to overcome, but by germ line therapy surely we can eradicate only the deleterious mutations that cause these documented diseases. Selection at work again, yes it is artificial because it is us doing the work, but it is still the same work that natural selection does, just a lot more accurate (targeting one or a few alleles compared to the eradication of an entire organism). Perhaps that is a discussion for another thread though.

 

First, Lenski isn't doing artificial selection. What is happening in his cultures is natural selection. He didn't "set up" his experiment for anaerobic citrate metabolism. He set the experiment up for bacteria to evolve by natural selection or genetic drift. It's just that there was an unused food source in the environment. Lenski didn't do any selecting for individual bacteria that were able to make use of that resource.

 

Forgive my misunderstanding here, but Lenski and his team deliberately added citrate in excess as source of carbon, while glucose was severely depleted. Sure they did not force the colonies to develop anaerobic citrate metabolism, however they did put in place the selection pressure once the requisite mutations had occurred. I appreciate this is not the same as artificial selection when thinking about it properly, but human invoked natural selection if you will.

 

Second, what people call it and what it really is can be 2 different things. We are looking at what the situation really is. By the definitions used, artificial selection = eugenics on other species. Instead of members of the same species deciding what the "desirable traits" are, the decision is made by a member of another species.

 

Because morals don't apply outside your own species. Morals are a decision on how to treat members of your own species. EVERY species exploits others to a greater or lesser extent. Let's face it, all animals exploit (eventually) plants for food. Artificial selection is another form of exploitation. Humans, because of their technology, are better at the exploitation than other species and do so at a conscious level. But a beaver (to use but one example) selecting trees to fell in order to create a dam (and the pond behind it) are exploiting the trees and changing the habitat to suit themselves. I suspect, if we looked into it, that beavers prefer certain types, sizes, and shape of trunk in the trees they cut down. That is a form of artificial selection. Not conscious on the part of beavers, of course, but they are selecting. Are they immoral?

 

You've hit the nail on the head there. The only issue I will raise however is that whilst beavers are selecting specific trees, this may be a behavioural characteristic individual to that organism or pedigree, they are in fact selecting against those characteristics if they cut the tree down before it reproduces. That would not be eugenics because it does not select for desirable characteristics, but against them.

[Mr Skeptic]

The biggest problem I see with eugenics is that it would be done by politicians rather than scientists. And then you might end up with some crazy guy in charge who thinks that blond hair and blue eyes makes one superior, or that Jews are inferior, etc. The other problem is that most harmful mutations have already been eliminated, and those that remain are usually a compromise -- an advantage in one circumstance but a disadvantage in another. I don't think we're qualified to tell the difference yet.

 

However, single nucleotide mutations that do not persist in the population and are known to be harmful are fair game IMO.

[pioneer]

Eugenics is evolution based on humans deciding natural selection, or in this case unnatural selection. The results may not be natural. It comes down to what silly humans will chose.

 

Superficial looks are important to Eugenics. More dogs are bred for the fluff factor than for performance. This human vanity tendency could pose a problem when a new mother or father is the given the choice. If all the women, for example, are genetically made 10's, nobody is a 10. At that point human, looks, may need to go through fashion cycles, with last season's 10's out of style. This creates plastic surgery business. It remind me of a twilight zone episode where all the woman are beautiful and there was one girl who did not want to be a wind tunnel clone. But in the end they forced her to take the drug, for her own good.

 

Health is important. This may be one area where the head is on straight. But if everyone is healthy, this will mean loss of medical jobs. The industry will have to come up with creative problems to stay in business. Or will need to hide some things on the shelf to perpetuate their industry. Or build in new genetic problems. You don't think all this people want to flip hamburgers. They are only human and will eventually have a say.

 

From the point of view of the ideal, everyone would be intelligent and able to think independently. Do you think those in power will want this? They might prefer herd animal; intelligent but easier to control. This is for the greater good. It may be better to keep everyone's mind on the fall body fashions and not on pushing the envelop of change too fast.

 

The next problem is, what if the children all begin to exceed the parents ability to teach and inspire their children? What that means one will have to farm parenting out to experts, or the children will get restless. Who controls the experts and what happens if the students are too bright? Basically one see the beginnings of anarchy. To prevent that scenario we may need to make sure we add herd animal genes, even if the parent specs lion. Or give the medical community the job of making pacification drugs so they can also deal with the side affects, to help them stay in business.

[DJBruce]

I am against Eugenics I see it as something that has and normally does lead to racism and division. But I am for something similar. I am for people who are wanting kids to see if the have any recessive genes, that cause health problems, that would show in there off springs.

[Ant Sinclair]

https://m.youtube.com/results?q=bill%20gates%20speech%20on%20population%20control&sm=3

 

Above is a link to Bill Gates speech on population control where He's saying that He would like to see the population brought down to less than a billion preferably 500 million!!! !

[swansont]

https://m.youtube.com/results?q=bill%20gates%20speech%20on%20population%20control&sm=3

 

Above is a link to Bill Gates speech on population control where He's saying that He would like to see the population brought down to less than a billion preferably 500 million!!! !

 

!

Moderator Note

 

No, it's not, it's link to a search. Linking to a search that has many videos in it is even more of a time-waster than linking to a video sans explanation, and the latter is against the rules.

 

Let's have the actual link, and see if it is as advertised.