Eugenics

[Sayonara]

...

In the long run' date=' ridding society from anomalies can lead to a lot worse than we think.

Just like playing with our genes can lead to genetic anomalies and deseases, because we don't know the full mechanism of the human genome.[/quote']

I agree that massive planet-wide genetic changes to mankind would be a bad idea (although, by your own admission, not necessarily with a "bad result".)

My problem here is that this has nothing to do with the original post.

 

 

Okay, simple. Society could not act in the best interests of society as it would be shutting down contingency. No-one knows what will affect our species in the future and which genetic make-up would be most suited to survive these future challenges.

That argument is fairly pointless as it works either way. Also, nobody is proposing that a chronically reduced genetic monoculture is a good idea.

 

 

We may think creating a set of obermench-style blonde blue-eyed genii will help us now

I think it's 'Ubermensch' (just finished Schindler's Ark ). Genii is not a real word - the pl. is geniuses.

 

 

but in the long term it will make our species more vulerable to attack by pathogens. The tallest wheatsheaves get knocked down by the wind.

You don't know that. In fact, that is pretty contentious as you are suggesting (assuming this follows on from your Aryan comments) that vulnerability to a given pathogen is a racially determined trait.

 

 

I urge you all to re-read the original post, because constraints were set in there that you are simply ignoring.

[SurfSciGuy]

The orignal post makes tacit assumption that brighter people are not of the welfare class and that the welfare class is full of stupid people and they are in that class because they are stupid. What is the point of responding to the post if it so fundamentally flawed?

 

And as for reducing the gene pool, this will make our species more vulnerable - with less genetic resources we have less contingency against pathogenic attack it's a question of stats. In the end we do not know what genes may be useful against pathogens (for example sickle cell anaemia is a fatal condition in it's double gene form, however the hybrid is resistant to malaria and only suffers mild symtoms, if you map sickle cell and malaria you will find that occurance of both is closely related - nature is selecting sickle cell for it's beneficial effects).

 

Eugenics is flawed because every justification is based on incorrect assumptions, why? Because the proposers of Eugenics are from certain social classes and believe that lower social classes are created through genetic flaws when there has never been proof of this. Let us make an important distinction here, eugenics is NOT gene therapy (the treatment of a diseased individual by gene techonogies). Eugenics is the improvment of a species by genetic selection. It's very definition is it's failure, what is improvement? Who gauges it? What qualifies as success? Is intelligence more important than practical ability, is it more important than fertility? Where is the evidence that shows the clever people give birth to clever kids??? Eugenics completely ignores environmental factors - it's just an attempt at a quick fix solution to our problems that won't work.

[Sayonara]

The orignal post makes tacit assumption that brighter people are not of the welfare class and that the welfare class is full of stupid people and they are in that class because they are stupid. What is the point of responding to the post if it so fundamentally flawed?

The point is to either answer the question or explain where the problems lie. Don't you see a dichotomy in asking "what's the point of answering this question" after you took the time to reply to it without actually answering?

 

 

And as for reducing the gene pool, this will make our species more vulnerable - with less genetic resources we have less contingency against pathogenic attack it's a question of stats. In the end we do not know what genes may be useful against pathogens (for example sickle cell anaemia is a fatal condition in it's double gene form, however the hybrid is resistant to malaria and only suffers mild symtoms, if you map sickle cell and malaria you will find that occurance of both is closely related - nature is selecting sickle cell for it's beneficial effects).

But you don't know that the gene pool will be decreased. Certainly there was no mention of sterilisations, ethnic cleansing, arranged relationships or licensed mating. Nor was any geographical scope suggested.

 

All the o/p is suggesting is that people could be encouraged to use social forethought in their mate selection strategy. How is that different to any other previous shifts in mate selection?

 

 

Eugenics is flawed because every justification is based on incorrect assumptions, why?

That's a tenuous statement, because you can approach virtually anything in the same way.

Like anything else, eugenics can only be "non-flawed" when implemented in a certain situation, at the right time, for the right period, under the right circumstances.

 

 

Because the proposers of Eugenics are from certain social classes and believe that lower social classes are created through genetic flaws when there has never been proof of this.

Sweeping statement ahoy.

 

 

Let us make an important distinction here, eugenics is NOT gene therapy (the treatment of a diseased individual by gene techonogies). Eugenics is the improvment of a species by genetic selection.

I don't think anyone would argue with that, but Wolfgang does not appear to be proposing some massive change to the whole species. He is talking about "society", and we have no reason to believe he is not referring merely to the one in which he lives. He gives no indication as to any mandatory requirements or forced breeding programs, nor does he indicate any kind of "genetic ideal" which is supposed to be adhered to.

 

 

It's very definition is it's failure, what is improvement? Who gauges it? What qualifies as success? Is intelligence more important than practical ability, is it more important than fertility? Where is the evidence that shows the clever people give birth to clever kids??? Eugenics completely ignores environmental factors - it's just an attempt at a quick fix solution to our problems that won't work.

Those are better points of discussion, provided they aren't treated as conclusions awaiting justification, which currently seems to be the case.

[SurfSciGuy]

The point is to either answer the question or explain where the problems lie. Don't you see a dichotomy in asking "what's the point of answering this question" after you took the time to reply to it without actually answering?

 

I was actually entering the discussion prompted by the first post, which I think is perfectly justified

 

 

But you don't know that the gene pool will be decreased. Certainly there was no mention of sterilisations, ethnic cleansing, arranged relationships or licensed mating. Nor was any geographical scope suggested.

 

All the o/p is suggesting is that people could be encouraged to use social forethought in their mate selection strategy. How is that different to any other previous shifts in mate selection?

 

It must be decreased, by selecting certain genetic traits you are excluding others. Social forethought? What exactly is that? Sounds like the state telling you who to shack up with to me - bit orwellian. I don't really know what you mean by previous shifts in mate selection.

 

That's a tenuous statement, because you can approach virtually anything in the same way.

Like anything else, eugenics can only be "non-flawed" when implemented in a certain situation, at the right time, for the right period, under the right circumstances.

 

The implementation of eugenics is flawed for the reasons I have stated above - ergo I do not believe there is a right situation/place/time for eugenics. Justification fo eugenics stems from the fact that a better society will result from genetic selection - there is no proof for this.

 

Sweeping statement ahoy.

 

No, not really.

 

I don't think anyone would argue with that, but Wolfgang does not appear to be proposing some massive change to the whole species. He is talking about "society", and we have no reason to believe he is not referring merely to the one in which he lives. He gives no indication as to any mandatory requirements or forced breeding programs, nor does he indicate any kind of "genetic ideal" which is supposed to be adhered to.

 

Well he does indicate that people from the welfare classes are undesirable and that he believes that it is because they lack intellegence. He believes that we should select for intelligence and that intelligent people do not go on welfare, which is wrong, but it is a genetic ideal.

 

So you are saying it's okay to experiment on a bit of our species? The altering american society will not have an impact on our species as a whole for example?

 

 

Those are better points of discussion, provided they aren't treated as conclusions awaiting justification, which currently seems to be the case.

 

Seems to me you are as guilty as me of arguing against points that weren't actually made - I don't recall talking about "forced breeding programs" at any point in my posts, nor ethnic cleansing, sterilisation or other nasty things that you mentioned. Attacking my argument on points of construction by putting words in my mouth is not very good. I thought for a moment you were actually good at this.

[Sayonara]

I was actually entering the discussion prompted by the first post, which I think is perfectly justified

You don't see a dichotomy there then?

 

 

It must be decreased, by selecting certain genetic traits you are excluding others.

That's not necessarily true, even if sustained, highly specific and mandatory genetic planning were carried out.

 

 

Social forethought? What exactly is that? Sounds like the state telling you who to shack up with to me - bit orwellian. I don't really know what you mean by previous shifts in mate selection.

Social forethought - exactly that. Wolfgang is suggesting that instead of shacking up with the first viable partner that one quite fancies, one should instead think about how the offspring of such a union will benefit the population in which one lives. "The state", and whatever ominous overtones you can manage to attach to that, don't necessarily have to come into it.

"Previous shifts in mate selection" refers to changes in the past that have affected the way males and females select their mates, and therefore affected the human population on either a local or wide scale.

Which Orwell story are you referring to? It doesn't particularly remind me of any of his works.

 

 

The implementation of eugenics is flawed for the reasons I have stated above - ergo I do not believe there is a right situation/place/time for eugenics.

While I believe that we should learn from history, when used in this way "Hindsight is 20/20" is an extension of the Appeal to Tradition. You may not currently believe that there is a time and a place for eugenics, but there are plenty of possible and existing scenarios that call for it, especially on small scales.

Eugenics seems to work perfectly well in livestock husbandry, horticulture, botany, and the dog/cat/horse pedigree lines, and I can't think of many more effective ways to establish foothold populations once we finally start blasting colonists off to unfamiliar habitats.

 

 

Justification fo eugenics stems from the fact that a better society will result from genetic selection - there is no proof for this.

Since when did a lack of proof of a concept working in reality mean that the possibility is not worth discussing?

 

 

No, not really.

I think that it is, seeing as you appear to have plucked it from thin air. I am sure you have your reasons for stating those points, but they're no good to me if they aren't on the page.

 

 

Well he does indicate that people from the welfare classes are undesirable and that he believes that it is because they lack intellegence. He believes that we should select for intelligence and that intelligent people do not go on welfare, which is wrong, but it is a genetic ideal.

Yes, that's true. His post does suggest a (possibly causal) link between poor people and a lack of intelligence, which is by no means a certainty and, to be honest, most likely codswallop. However an argument against Aryanist eugenics is not the same as a discussion of why that link is not supportable.

 

 

So you are saying it's okay to experiment on a bit of our species? The altering american society will not have an impact on our species as a whole for example?

I did not say anything about experimentation, nor about American society. Wolfgang appears to be asking for a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of encouraging socially responsible mating decisions (I realise "socially responsible" is highly subjective, but since we are way off-topic already it isn't really going to present a problem in this context.)

Let's take the example of America, I have no problems with that:

In what ways do you believe an essentially cultural change in a population of 285 million (bearing in mind that the change will not affect all members of the population, since it is not mandatory) is going to have a major impact on a planetary population of over six billion?

Additionally, why should any impact effected through these means be considered in a different way to any other population-mediated change that has affected the course of human development? God knows there have been plenty of them.

 

 

Seems to me you are as guilty as me of arguing against points that weren't actually made - I don't recall talking about "forced breeding programs" at any point in my posts, nor ethnic cleansing, sterilisation or other nasty things that you mentioned.

The form of eugenics you have been discussing, and the result of which you cautioned, are indicative of a complete and mandatory system of genetic guidance. The use of nasty things, as you put it, is directly implied.

If you can think of ways to achieve a programmatically modelled genetic pool without them, that would be a very interesting route for this discussion to take.

 

 

Attacking my argument on points of construction by putting words in my mouth is not very good. I thought for a moment you were actually good at this.

I don't see that I have, and I think the accusation is somewhat premature - particularly since you quoted the crux of my argument above and plainly stated that you did not understand what I meant.

[LucidDreamer]

In the traditional meaning of the word Eugenics usually refers to a social program designed to eliminate the propagation of "bad" genes and encourage the propagation of "good" genes. I think any sort of social Eugenics is unethical and impractical. If your going to force people to follow it its obviously unethical and if you ask people to follow it they are going to ignore you. People already, in a roundabout way, choose the best mating partners they can get. Asking people that you feel are unfit to remove themselves from the gene pool is ridiculous and wrong.

 

Genetic engineering is a different story. It's easy to just bash genetic engineering by mentioning all the horrible things that could go wrong. Everyone seems to be just focusing on the negatives of it and no one is talking about the almost unlimited benefits. Genetic Engineering could improve the world more than any other technology. It could increase the life span to hundreds maybe thousands of years. It could eliminate almost all disease. It could create a world full of Einsteins, Newtons, and Da Vincis.

 

People’s main argument against it is that it would reduce the gene pool and that the lack of biodiversity could be catastrophic. That's a valid argument and it means we should move into it very carefully. It’s not like the generations that are working on genetic engineering are not going to anticipate the problems. I imagine that very soon individual genomes are going to be collected and placed in libraries. If they ever need to reintroduce certain genes they will have them ready.

[Sayonara]

The way you describe genetic engineering makes it sound exactly like the principle behind eugenics.

 

"I imagine that very soon individual genomes are going to be collected and placed in libraries."

One would imagine any civilisation that messed about with its genetic stock without taking this simple precaution would deserve the consequences.

[LucidDreamer]

The way you describe genetic engineering makes it sound exactly like the principle behind eugenics.

 

The principle is similar but the method differs. I am also not advocating any form of coercion, sterilization, or elitism. I'm sure many social problems like elitism could potentially pose a problem, but I think that the potential benefits cannot be ignored.

 

It is very difficult to create cures for the host of diseases that plaque our species. Most of modern medicine results in mediocre treatments at best. It would be much easier to remove the genes that cause these diseases. You may call this unethical but I find it no less ethical than allowing millions to suffer and die when it could be prevented. You may warn against tampering with nature but man has been tampering with nature in a limited way for thousands of years. I think genetic engineering is inevitable and we should concentrate on determining how to do it, taking ethics and potential undesirable consequences into consideration.

[Sayonara]

The principle is similar but the method differs.

That was kind of my point.

 

 

I am also not advocating any form of coercion, sterilization, or elitism. I'm sure many social problems like elitism could potentially pose a problem, but I think that the potential benefits cannot be ignored.

Read the original post.

 

 

It is very difficult to create cures for the host of diseases that plaque our species. Most of modern medicine results in mediocre treatments at best. It would be much easier to remove the genes that cause these diseases. You may call this unethical but I find it no less ethical than allowing millions to suffer and die when it could be prevented. You may warn against tampering with nature but man has been tampering with nature in a limited way for thousands of years. I think genetic engineering is inevitable and we should concentrate on determining how to do it, taking ethics and potential undesirable consequences into consideration.

Well I'd love to chat with you on the subject of how you think you know what I'm going to say about something we've never discussed, but it has nothing to do with the thread.

 

Why not start a new thread on the ethical position of genetic engineering in medicine?

[LucidDreamer]

Sayonara, only the first paragraph was addressed to you, the second was addressing the issues of the thread. I know that the original poster did not advocate any form of coercion but how in the world are you going to accomplish social eugenics without it. Excuse me sir, we feel that you, being a stupid ugly person, should not reproduce for the good of mankind. That’s ok with you isn't it?

[Sayonara]

Sayonara, only the first paragraph was addressed to you, the second was addressing the issues of the thread. I know that the original poster did not advocate any form of coercion but how in the world are you going to accomplish social eugenics without it. Excuse me sir, we feel that you, being a stupid ugly person, should not reproduce for the good of mankind. That’s ok with you isn't it?

As ludicrous as it sounds, that does appear to be what we are meant to be discussing.

[SurfSciGuy]

You don't see a dichotomy there then?

 

Nope.

 

 

That's not necessarily true, even if sustained, highly specific and mandatory genetic planning were carried out.

 

If there are desirable traits there must be undesirable (or at least less desirable traits). for instance if you are selecting for a certain gene type for intelligence, all other gene types at that point in the chromosome will be disfavoured - it has to be that way two genes can't occupy the same space. For instance if you select for a particular eye colour the genes that regulate that occur at the same point for everyone but they code for different eye colours. Selecting one means that you will deselect the other two.

 

Social forethought - exactly that. Wolfgang is suggesting that instead of shacking up with the first viable partner that one quite fancies, one should instead think about how the offspring of such a union will benefit the population in which one lives. "The state", and whatever ominous overtones you can manage to attach to that, don't necessarily have to come into it.

"Previous shifts in mate selection" refers to changes in the past that have affected the way males and females select their mates, and therefore affected the human population on either a local or wide scale.

 

In a way we already do practice "social forethought" although I prefer to call it dating. Of course for eugenics to work you need a set of rules or guidelines to what makes a good couple - enter the state.

 

Which Orwell story are you referring to? It doesn't particularly remind me of any of his works.

 

The word Orwellian is used by modern political theorists to describe a over-controlling "big brother" type state - not neccessarily directly refering to the contents of Orwell's novels (much like the word Wagnerian does not neccessary refer exclusively to the works of Richard Wagner). However it does really remind me more of Yevgenny Zamatin now I come to think of it.

 

While I believe that we should learn from history, when used in this way "Hindsight is 20/20" is an extension of the Appeal to Tradition. You may not currently believe that there is a time and a place for eugenics, but there are plenty of possible and existing scenarios that call for it, especially on small scales.

Eugenics seems to work perfectly well in livestock husbandry, horticulture, botany, and the dog/cat/horse pedigree lines, and I can't think of many more effective ways to establish foothold populations once we finally start blasting colonists off to unfamiliar habitats.

 

Existing scenarios, I suppose you mean things like over-population in China - "eugenic"-style programmes there have reduced the number of females in China massively - maybe you think this is a good thing, I don't. I just don't agree with you when you say there are any existing scenarios that call for eugenics - I can think of plenty that call for social education and humanitarian aid.

 

Eugenics does not work perfectly well in any of the agricultural or pet breeding uses you have listed. There are myriad examples of genetic lines being "weak" and suffering from a host of problems directly caused by the eugenic selection process - of course if a genetic line doesn't "work" in these examples it just dies out because it is commercially unviable - would it be the same for humans? We have countless examples of the damage that can be caused by unnatural (or accelerated) gene selection both in our own species (look at the royal families of europe in the last two centuries) or in others (dogs are a great example).

 

 

Since when did a lack of proof of a concept working in reality mean that the possibility is not worth discussing?

 

Did I say it was not worth discussing? What are we doing now?

 

I think that it is, seeing as you appear to have plucked it from thin air. I am sure you have your reasons for stating those points, but they're no good to me if they aren't on the page.

 

Read the bios of Charles Davenport and his colleagues, for example.

 

Yes, that's true. His post does suggest a (possibly causal) link between poor people and a lack of intelligence, which is by no means a certainty and, to be honest, most likely codswallop. However an argument against Aryanist eugenics is not the same as a discussion of why that link is not supportable.

 

Good job I didn't make that argument then. I was merely using an extreme example to illustrate a point. Unfortunately you seem to have extrapolated an "argument" from that , which you have accused me of presenting and launch a rebuttal against this arguement. I did not, however, make the argument, so why should I defend it? The fact is that Wolfgang's idea of "mild" eugenics is just as distasteful as the Aryan ideaology, I don't see why it is better to select for "intellegence" and to discourage the "welfare class" from breeding as it is to select for Aryan features and to discourage non-Aryan's from breeding.

 

I did not say anything about experimentation, nor about American society. Wolfgang appears to be asking for a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of encouraging socially responsible mating decisions (I realise "socially responsible" is highly subjective, but since we are way off-topic already it isn't really going to present a problem in this context.)

 

I know you didn't I was asking you question to see what you think (surely the point of discussion?). I am perfectly aware of what wolfgang was asking, I don't need you to explain it to me. You may disagree with the way I have chosen to address the issues, which is fine, but I don't need correction from someone who is no more an expert than I. Why are we way off topic? Surely we are discussing the first post - couldn't be more on topic if we tried.

 

Let's take the example of America, I have no problems with that:

In what ways do you believe an essentially cultural change in a population of 285 million (bearing in mind that the change will not affect all members of the population, since it is not mandatory) is going to have a major impact on a planetary population of over six billion?

Additionally, why should any impact effected through these means be considered in a different way to any other population-mediated change that has affected the course of human development? God knows there have been plenty of them.

 

So a cultural change in America won't affect the rest of the world? Read some politics and look at the last 100 years of history. The impact would be no different from other population-mediated changes, however I believe it would be negative.

 

The form of eugenics you have been discussing, and the result of which you cautioned, are indicative of a complete and mandatory system of genetic guidance. The use of nasty things, as you put it, is directly implied.

If you can think of ways to achieve a programmatically modelled genetic pool without them, that would be a very interesting route for this discussion to take.

 

There must be some enforcement at some level to make eugenics work - this is because it is essentially forcing some of the population to do something against their will. The complete and mandatory system is the one you have been discussing - once again putting words into my mouth.

 

I don't see that I have, and I think the accusation is somewhat premature - particularly since you quoted the crux of my argument above and plainly stated that you did not understand what I meant.

 

Funny how the bit of your argument I needed clarification on suddenly becomes the crux? Maybe I didn't understand what you meant because you didn't explain it properly the first time.

[SurfSciGuy]

Okay lets revisit this to save on argument.

 

 

I was wondering if anyone believes eugenics' date=' if applied in a manner most would accept as humane and ethical, would be a good idea.

[/quote']

 

If I was a member of the majority of that society then by definition yes. A member of the minority by definition no. An external observer, no (although this point of view is apparently considered outside the frame of this debate).

 

A few years ago when searching the internet for why I personally was not really that bright and had to stuggle in school and in college right now, while my sibling was extremely intelligent and quickly and without difficulty earned a Bachelor's Degree in science, I came across the site of http://www.neoeugenics.com/ I read about IQ, psychometrics, personality types, eugenics/dysgenics, genetic engineering, cloning, and similar topics. I found out that IQ is mostly genetic and that this is why I personally was not as successful as many others.

 

The website is deeply worrying. It advocates eugenics as a "secular religion" (guy needs to read more political theory). While there are grains of truth in here (liberally borrowed from other authors and presented in a distorted montage), the site is typical of a religion in that it does not provide balanced debate. As far as I am aware links between IQ and genes are erroneous - the website is lying.

 

So, I ask myself, why not try to help future children by making sure they all get the best of genes available? I, from personal experience, knew what it felt like to have learning disorders and just an average IQ at best, and felt resentful at how smarter people took for granted their higher intellect without really appreciating it. The consensus among the smart is that it is good to have stupid people and that they deserve to be as such and that they are needed to clean the toilets and take out the garbage of the smart people, so thus it would not be in the best interest of smart people to support eugenics.

 

It is not in the interests of anyone to pursue eugenics. The best thing you can do for children is to be a good parent and provide an environment in which they can grow intellectually and socially. This will give your child a better start than any amount of "clever" genes.

 

The problem of course is that eugenics is often tied to stories of genocide and greatly inhumane acts. But, if we look at the history of religion, medicine, and the like, everything can be taken to extremes, but it does not have to be.

 

Maybe somethings can only be extreme - this depends on your point of view.

 

Eugenics can be mild: we can encourage brighter people to have more children and the welfare class to have fewer children. Also, with the emerging genetic engineering technology and cloning, all parents can have bright children.

 

Is this mild? The attempt at complete social engineering of a society by genetic selection is mild? I don't think so. Why is selecting for "intelligence" or specifically IQ, which is shown to be culturally and gender-biased, any better than selecting for blonde hair and blue eyes? There is no more argument for saying boosting the intelligence of the entire society will decrease social problems than making them all have the same hair colour.

You are also making the mistake in equating intelligence with educational privilege (i.e. if you are clever you have been to college); natural intelligence maybe due to genetic factors alone, but educational privilege is a purely social factor. It is having a degree from college that means you will be more likely to "succeed" in society, not possessing the intelligence to obtain a degree.

 

As a non-White person, I of course don't support race-based eugenics, but rather one in which smart people, regardless of race, is valued, and less intelligent people, regardless of race, is something people would wish they could help to become more intelligent, if technology would allow.

 

What you advocate is just raising the bar for everyone - this will make no difference. The law-abiding citizens would get smarter and the criminals would get smarter. Intelligence and social dysfunction are not inversly proportional. You also assume that social problems are cause by genetics alone - this is a flawed assumption.

 

There you have it.

[Sayonara]

Nope.

Well I guess you're absolved then.

 

 

If there are desirable traits there must be undesirable (or at least less desirable traits). for instance if you are selecting for a certain gene type for intelligence, all other gene types at that point in the chromosome will be disfavoured - it has to be that way two genes can't occupy the same space. For instance if you select for a particular eye colour the genes that regulate that occur at the same point for everyone but they code for different eye colours. Selecting one means that you will deselect the other two.

That's a very crude way of looking at the situation, and is steeped in assumptions about linked genes, phenotypic expression patterns, and even the way that the programme is implemented. Also, it would only apply under the strictest forms of eugenics, which are not required by Wolfgang's proposition.

Yes, a highly strict and monocultural eugenics program implemented in the most literal way, with no means of reintroducing genetic material that has been removed, would be a spectacularly bad idea. But that is not a catch-all argument against all forms of eugenics.

 

 

In a way we already do practice "social forethought" although I prefer to call it dating. Of course for eugenics to work you need a set of rules or guidelines to what makes a good couple - enter the state.

"Dating" is not social forethought. The vast majority of the time it is very short-term and unmitigatingly personal.

A problem people will have with this concept is that virtually everyone in the West is utterly devoted to the idea of their self, particularly non-parents. In order for a system of socially-inclined mate selection to be feasible, the society would already need to have undergone a shift in attitude that lends people towards acting for the good of society as a whole, future generations, or some such non-self cause.

This is, of course, something of a hitch.

 

 

The word Orwellian is used by modern political theorists to describe a over-controlling "big brother" type state...

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was trying to illustrate the fact that responding with the Appeal to Authority, in any of its forms, is not a substitute for actually reading my points. When I proposed the idea of Social Forethought in mate selection, the implication was that the onus would rest with the individuals involved, not with the state. There is no particular need for the state to dictate to people requirements that they can see for themselves.

 

 

...not neccessarily directly refering to the contents of Orwell's novels (much like the word Wagnerian does not neccessary refer exclusively to the works of Richard Wagner). However it does really remind me more of Yevgenny Zamatin now I come to think of it.

Imagine that. "Some fiction someone wrote a bit like things that might happen in real life" shocker.

The only reason you would compare an argument to the theme of a literary work is to draw a negative or positive parallel. That's not a counter-point by any measure, and I object to the practice in general. You might as well start talking about the Nazis.

 

 

Existing scenarios, I suppose you mean things like over-population in China -

Actually I wasn't referring to that. If I had been, I would probably have mentioned it in some way.

 

 

"eugenic"-style programmes there have reduced the number of females in China massively

I am not sure that you can label numeric population control as a form of eugenics, so if you're going to use that in any kind of moral argument it would be an idea to show figures and causal evidence of some sort.

 

 

maybe you think this is a good thing, I don't.

Don't ascribe to me notions of support or approval for events or processes that I have simply stated are a matter of fact (and especially don't do it for scenarios I have not even mentioned, such as this one).

That method of debate is precariously close to mud-slinging. See, I could just come back with a comment like "I suppose you think it's better for China to have uncontrolled population expansion, resulting in massive human suffering? You're a NAZI!" etc etc, and things will go downhill from there.

 

 

I just don't agree with you when you say there are any existing scenarios that call for eugenics - I can think of plenty that call for social education and humanitarian aid.

Yes, there are plenty that don't necessarily require a eugenic approach as a solution, but that does not mean that eugenics could not be used as a solution.

I'm sure there are plenty of applications for eugenics that neither of us have thought of yet. You seem to have an inherent objection to any kind of eugenic approach, no matter the conditions, which could be obfuscating your view on this.

 

Do not make the mistake of assuming that I am not aware of the potential for abuse of eugenics, or of the fact that implementing any form of eugenics programme would raise a great number of issues and, no doubt, debate. While eugenics is historically controversial, I don't believe that every possible use for eugenics has drawbacks that outweigh the benefits (and let's be honest about this, few things do when you are dealing with any form of population shift). After all, we are essentially talking about guided selection - nothing more.

 

 

Eugenics does not work perfectly well in any of the agricultural or pet breeding uses you have listed.

No, but it does work. There was no requirement in Wolfgang's post for any kind of perfect method, and there was no requirement for perfection in my examples of the current applications of eugenics.

 

 

There are myriad examples of genetic lines being "weak" and suffering from a host of problems directly caused by the eugenic selection process - of course if a genetic line doesn't "work" in these examples it just dies out because it is commercially unviable - would it be the same for humans?

This is why we have cultivars in agriculture, and breeds in husbandry. There are lines that have low resistance to a particular disease (or what have you), but then the same can be said of the population as a whole. Generally the success of selective breeding is measured by the achievement of the goal, not by avoidable or mitigatable side-effects.

You should also keep in mind that such methods are rarely used in isolation. Combined approaches always work best in biology.

 

Regardless, the aim of Wolfgang's proposal is to encourage a shift towards increased mating of intelligent couples. Now, this is not actually eugenics, although it does vaguely share some characteristics.

The arguments you presented against intensive selective breeding would only apply to this scenario if the following cases were true:

1) Intelligence is genetically mediated,

2) Survival-critical phenotypes are linked to expression of the genes responsible for intelligence,

3) The programme creates a genetic monoculture.

 

All of that is rather unlikely.

 

There is no reason whatsoever why Wolfgang's proposal should result in any kind of homogenous genetic monoculture, in fact it's about as likely as that happening spontaneously for no particular reason.

 

 

We have countless examples of the damage that can be caused by unnatural (or accelerated) gene selection both in our own species (look at the royal families of europe in the last two centuries) or in others (dogs are a great example).

Cite some. You might want to focus on the dogs, seeing as the royal families in Europe in the last two centuries have not, as you imply, engaged in any form of planned, large scale genetic selection.

 

 

Read the bios of Charles Davenport and his colleagues, for example.

I saw it as a sweeping statement because it was not backed up by any external information, yet it drew highly significant generalisations that were important to the discussion. If that is not the epitome of a sweeping statement, what is?

The fact that it might be compatible with the ideas in a book written by someone you did not mention is completely irrelevant if you don't cite that to begin with.

 

 

Good job I didn't make that argument then. I was merely using an extreme example to illustrate a point. Unfortunately you seem to have extrapolated an "argument" from that , which you have accused me of presenting and launch a rebuttal against this arguement. I did not, however, make the argument, so why should I defend it?

I think you are playing the revisionist card here. If, as you say, you were illustrating a point, perhaps you could make that point more clear?

 

 

The fact is that Wolfgang's idea of "mild" eugenics is just as distasteful as the Aryan ideaology, I don't see why it is better to select for "intellegence" and to discourage the "welfare class" from breeding as it is to select for Aryan features and to discourage non-Aryan's from breeding.

Maybe because a more intelligent population is highly likely to be less destructive, more productive, more progressive, and capable of achieving new cultural heights, whereas Aryanism was completely arbitrary?

This is somewhat speculative, admitedly, but I suspect this is actually what we were supposed to be discussing from the start.

 

 

I know you didn't I was asking you question to see what you think (surely the point of discussion?). I am perfectly aware of what wolfgang was asking, I don't need you to explain it to me. You may disagree with the way I have chosen to address the issues, which is fine, but I don't need correction from someone who is no more an expert than I. Why are we way off topic? Surely we are discussing the first post - couldn't be more on topic if we tried.

The issue I have is that - despite the thread title - I don't believe that what Wolfgang is proposing can automatically qualify as an implementation of eugenics. I do tend to go on and on though instead of just saying that to begin with, as you can see.

 

 

 

So a cultural change in America won't affect the rest of the world? Read some politics and look at the last 100 years of history.

I'm disappointed that you find it easier to respond with obvious patronisation instead of having a little think about the sentence you quoted.

If we consider this as a genetic change, the effect will be negligible. Just the plain maths tells us that.

If we consider it as a cultural shift we have to take into account the introverted nature of the United States, the fact that few Americans travel abroad compared to the populations of other countries, the general habit of the administration to only enter the international arena when it wants something for the US, and so on.

 

However, the implication of your original question ("The altering american society will not have an impact on our species as a whole?") was that the biology or ecology of all mankind would change, whereas now you seem to suggest that, because I called this change "essentially cultural", your argument can be transplanted to non-biological effects without the courtesy of pointing out that that was not what my prior post related to.

It is the idea of large scale, species-wide biological impact I am poo-pooing, not the idea that the economical or political climates might be altered (undoubtedly they would be).

 

 

The impact would be no different from other population-mediated changes, however I believe it would be negative.

I understand you think it would be negative. What I want to know is why? Your arguments so far have not really given me any coherent clue as to what your objection to guided selection actually is.

 

 

There must be some enforcement at some level to make eugenics work - this is because it is essentially forcing some of the population to do something against their will. The complete and mandatory system is the one you have been discussing - once again putting words into my mouth.

For god's sake, I am not advocating or discussing the implementation of eugenics with regards to Wolfgang's first post - you are. Why don't you get this?

 

I am not discussing a complete and mandatory system. Again, as I mentioned above, the way I interpret Wolfgang's idea is that it is a method for encouraging people to use socially aware decision-making before they create offspring. I really don't understand why that is so difficult for you to grasp.

 

The fact that he used the word "encourage" surely precludes the suggestion of force or rules?

 

 

 

Funny how the bit of your argument I needed clarification on suddenly becomes the crux? Maybe I didn't understand what you meant because you didn't explain it properly the first time.

It wasn't "sudden". If you read through my posts again you will see that it has consistently been the point of what I am saying.

If you needed clarification you could have asked for it. I am perfectly happy to rephrase anything that I have not made clear, but make no mistake: it is not my responsibility to decide what you will do with information you do not understand.

[SurfSciGuy]

Well I guess you're absolved then.

 

Thank you

 

 

That's a very crude way of looking at the situation, and is steeped in assumptions about linked genes, phenotypic expression patterns, and even the way that the programme is implemented. Also, it would only apply under the strictest forms of eugenics, which are not required by Wolfgang's proposition.

Yes, a highly strict and monocultural eugenics program implemented in the most literal way, with no means of reintroducing genetic material that has been removed, would be a spectacularly bad idea. But that is not a catch-all argument against all forms of eugenics.

 

So we can promote one thing and allow it's antithesis to survive too? I'm not sure that that is logical. If we promote intelligence we must by definition be acting against lack of intelligence.

 

"Dating" is not social forethought. The vast majority of the time it is very short-term and unmitigatingly personal.

 

Sweeping statement, in your opinion and whatever else you like to call it. How do you know how other people conduct themselves when dating? How do you know that people don't have criteria. Dating is by it's very nature an assessment of a potential mates suitability and is personal, so you don't know about anyone else.

 

A problem people will have with this concept is that virtually everyone in the West is utterly devoted to the idea of their self, particularly non-parents. In order for a system of socially-inclined mate selection to be feasible, the society would already need to have undergone a shift in attitude that lends people towards acting for the good of society as a whole, future generations, or some such non-self cause.

This is, of course, something of a hitch.

 

Depends whether you think mate selection based on a set of guidelines is good for society? Surely happiness is a factor too, if people are happy with their mate, they will be more beneficial to society as a whole.

 

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was trying to illustrate the fact that responding with the Appeal to Authority, in any of its forms, is not a substitute for actually reading my points. When I proposed the idea of Social Forethought in mate selection, the implication was that the onus would rest with the individuals involved, not with the state. There is no particular need for the state to dictate to people requirements that they can see for themselves.

 

Surely everyone will have different opinions of what a good mate is. Surely that is just the society we live in now. People are allowed to mate with who they want to. Without overall guidance there is no point to what wolfgang is suggesting. The only body that is suitable to provide that guidance is the state.

 

Imagine that. "Some fiction someone wrote a bit like things that might happen in real life" shocker.

The only reason you would compare an argument to the theme of a literary work is to draw a negative or positive parallel. That's not a counter-point by any measure, and I object to the practice in general. You might as well start talking about the Nazis.

 

So you deny that works of literary fiction that explore powerful political concepts are worthless in an argument like this? Why can I not draw a negative or positive parallel? What is wrong with that? Argument is not all counter-point, comparison is a central tool of argument too. Also, talking about historical events is also perfectly justified. I really fail to see what you point is and your objection seems to go against the style of argument used by many top thinkers in this area and others.

 

Actually I wasn't referring to that. If I had been, I would probably have mentioned it in some way.

 

Didn't you see the word 'like'?

 

I am not sure that you can label numeric population control as a form of eugenics, so if you're going to use that in any kind of moral argument it would be an idea to show figures and causal evidence of some sort.

 

hence the "". Go look at the UN website yourself, I haven't got time to trawl through it and provide data for your satisfaction. I am also wary of publishing data without the author's persmission.

 

Don't ascribe to me notions of support or approval for events or processes that I have simply stated are a matter of fact (and especially don't do it for scenarios I have not even mentioned, such as this one).

That method of debate is precariously close to mud-slinging. See, I could just come back with a comment like "I suppose you think it's better for China to have uncontrolled population expansion, resulting in massive human suffering? You're a NAZI!" etc etc, and things will go downhill from there.

 

I said "maybe" indicating that it could be the case, but it may not be, because I don't know. Please do not veil your own mudslinging by hypotheticalising it.

 

Yes, there are plenty that don't necessarily require a eugenic approach as a solution, but that does not mean that eugenics could not be used as a solution.

 

Dropping nukes on socially deprived areas is also a solution - get real. It's whether the solution is acceptable or not that is the point.

 

You seem to have an inherent objection to any kind of eugenic approach, no matter the conditions, which could be obfuscating your view on this.

 

In your opinion. Maybe all the cases I have come across so far I do not believe eugenics to be the solution. Why? Because I think it's problems outweigh it's benefits to the situations I have considered (including wolfgang's).

 

Do not make the mistake of assuming that I am not aware of the potential for abuse of eugenics, or of the fact that implementing any form of eugenics programme would raise a great number of issues and, no doubt, debate.

 

Okay, I won't

 

While eugenics is historically controversial, I don't believe that every possible use for eugenics has drawbacks that outweigh the benefits (and let's be honest about this, few things do when you are dealing with any form of population shift).

 

As I said before, all the cases I have personally considered I can see no reason to use eugenics - maybe you disagree, but please respect my considered opinion.

 

After all, we are essentially talking about guided selection - nothing more.

 

What is "guided selection"? To me it means the state (or some offical body) give advice to people on who they should procreate with, this is still wrong, even without enforcement. How can anyone know the product of a union? I mean we just have to look at ourselves and our siblings, we are all different and have different abilities from our parents. Both my parents left school when they were 16, yet I am doing a PhD. Me and my sister have very different abilities yet we come from the same parents. Maybe if you screened all zygotes for genetic traits then maybe, but wolfgang's proposal just suggests that putting "the right" people together will create better offspring, when that isn't true. What about being brought up in a loving and happy family? I think that is the most important thing.

 

No, but it does work. There was no requirement in Wolfgang's post for any kind of perfect method, and there was no requirement for perfection in my examples of the current applications of eugenics.

 

You said it works perfectly well, but it doesn't. So you are wrong.

 

This is why we have cultivars in agriculture, and breeds in husbandry. There are lines that have low resistance to a particular disease (or what have you), but then the same can be said of the population as a whole. Generally the success of selective breeding is measured by the achievement of the goal, not by avoidable or mitigatable side-effects.

You should also keep in mind that such methods are rarely used in isolation. Combined approaches always work best in biology.

 

Are the side-effect avoidable and mitigatable in all instances? Pursuit of new technology and it's implementation has to be based on risk assessment. Whether these methods are used in combination or not is irrelevant to the discussion which is one of using one method only and whether that method would work.

 

Regardless, the aim of Wolfgang's proposal is to encourage a shift towards increased mating of intelligent couples. Now, this is not actually eugenics, although it does vaguely share some characteristics.

The arguments you presented against intensive selective breeding would only apply to this scenario if the following cases were true:

1) Intelligence is genetically mediated,

2) Survival-critical phenotypes are linked to expression of the genes responsible for intelligence,

3) The programme creates a genetic monoculture.

 

All of that is rather unlikely.

 

Yes but it also proves why wolfgang's proposal is flawed. Why have mating of intelligent couples unless it actually achieve more intelligent offspring? There must be an assumption the intelligence can be inherited, i.e. it is genetic, otherwise the whole excercise is pointless.

 

There is no reason whatsoever why Wolfgang's proposal should result in any kind of homogenous genetic monoculture, in fact it's about as likely as that happening spontaneously for no particular reason.

 

I've argued this before. If you select for certain characteristics you are selecting against other characteristics and these will drop out of the gene pool. It happens in evolution.

 

Cite some. You might want to focus on the dogs, seeing as the royal families in Europe in the last two centuries have not, as you imply, engaged in any form of planned, large scale genetic selection.

 

They have engaged in mate selection based on pedigree (much like dogs), which is a breeding programme. The gene pool slowly dimishes as members of the selected group become more closely related. Hence the Hapsburg lip and the prevelance of Haemophilia. The may not have been aware of genetic selection implicitly, but they were practicing it.

 

I saw it as a sweeping statement because it was not backed up by any external information, yet it drew highly significant generalisations that were important to the discussion. If that is not the epitome of a sweeping statement, what is?

 

I shall in future assume that other parcipants in the discuss are completely unaware of the historical context of the discussion.

 

The fact that it might be compatible with the ideas in a book written by someone you did not mention is completely irrelevant if you don't cite that to begin with.

 

No it isn't

 

I think you are playing the revisionist card here. If, as you say, you were illustrating a point, perhaps you could make that point more clear?

 

Pots and kettles time I think here, best let this one drop.

 

Maybe because a more intelligent population is highly likely to be less destructive, more productive, more progressive, and capable of achieving new cultural heights, whereas Aryanism was completely arbitrary?

 

You are basically saying that your preconceptions of intelligence lead you draw these conclusions. I would strongly disagree that a more intelligent population is highly likely to acheive any of those things. Many highly intelligent people are very destructive. Intelligence has no links with productivity as far as I am aware. Progressive is a vague term with a totally subjective meaning. Cultural Heights is also vague - but I would argue that it is more to do with knowledge and application of knowledge (i.e. education) than raw intelligence. At the end of the day intelligence is only useful if you harness it, by itself it does not achieve anything.

 

This is somewhat speculative, admitedly, but I suspect this is actually what we were supposed to be discussing from the start.

 

It is totally speculative and based on cultural preconceptions of what intelligence actually is.

 

The issue I have is that - despite the thread title - I don't believe that what Wolfgang is proposing can automatically qualify as an implementation of eugenics. I do tend to go on and on though instead of just saying that to begin with, as you can see.

 

Eugenics is the improvment of society by the selection of genetic characteristics. I agree that intelligence may not be a simple genetic trait so it could not be eugenics strictly. However it is plausable that the natural intellectual ability may have some genetic factor and wolfgang wishes to select for that (hence guided selection) if wolfgang does not think it is genetic then selection would be pointless. Basically, you could argue that it is eugenics.

 

I'm disappointed that you find it easier to respond with obvious patronisation instead of having a little think about the sentence you quoted.

If we consider this as a genetic change, the effect will be negligible. Just the plain maths tells us that.

If we consider it as a cultural shift we have to take into account the introverted nature of the United States, the fact that few Americans travel abroad compared to the populations of other countries, the general habit of the administration to only enter the international arena when it wants something for the US, and so on.

 

However, the implication of your original question ("The altering american society will not have an impact on our species as a whole?") was that the biology or ecology of all mankind would change, whereas now you seem to suggest that, because I called this change "essentially cultural", your argument can be transplanted to non-biological effects without the courtesy of pointing out that that was not what my prior post related to.

It is the idea of large scale, species-wide biological impact I am poo-pooing, not the idea that the economical or political climates might be altered (undoubtedly they would be).

 

Well this is the fundamental difference in argument here. I don't really see the way our species behaves (i.e. it's culture) can be seperated from the "biological" aspects of our species. Behaviour is part of biology and political and economic factors are part of our environment. I think you are on a hiding to nothing by trying to separate the man from the animal. Our culture affects our biology and ecology and vice versa. I didn't need to inform you of an extension to the same debate.

 

I understand you think it would be negative. What I want to know is why? Your arguments so far have not really given me any coherent clue as to what your objection to guided selection actually is.

 

Guided selection involves allowing a certain section of society (most likely the political elite) to decide what a "good" couple constitutes, when philosophically they cannot know. It also completely ignores nuture in favour of nature - -by stating that society will be improved by selective breeding, not by increasing social care and educational improvements. It denies that people mating with people they like or love and forming an emotionally strong bond is as important to producing good members of society as genetic make-up. It treats sex as a mere function and denies the emotional part of relationships.

 

Basically I see it as an attempt to deny an important part of ourselves, a part that has given rise to many of our great cultural achievements and that is free will.

 

For god's sake, I am not advocating or discussing the implementation of eugenics with regards to Wolfgang's first post - you are. Why don't you get this?

 

No, but you have attempted to justify eugenics as a viable solution in certain cirumstances - which I wholeheartedly reject.

 

I am not discussing a complete and mandatory system. Again, as I mentioned above, the way I interpret Wolfgang's idea is that it is a method for encouraging people to use socially aware decision-making before they create offspring. I really don't understand why that is so difficult for you to grasp.

 

The fact that he used the word "encourage" surely precludes the suggestion of force or rules?

 

I don't fail to grasp it, I just disagree with you. I also think it would be unfeasable to not have some form of enforcement. I agree with you if you wish to discourage teenage girls from getting pregnant (at that time). I want some clarification on what you mean by "socially aware" "social forethought" etc. I keep asking but you have yet to provide me with a satisfactory answer. Does it mean that people from certain sections of society should be discouraged from having children? Does it mean that people of certain intelligence should be discouraged from having children? If it does, why do it? What link is there that these people are more unfit parents that people of high intelligence and from high socio-economic groups? The fact is you can't separate nature from nuture - this is the problem. Eugenics really is ascribing traits to genetics that are probably a mixture of many different genetic and environmental factors. The premise is flawed and it will not work.

 

It wasn't "sudden". If you read through my posts again you will see that it has consistently been the point of what I am saying.

If you needed clarification you could have asked for it. I am perfectly happy to rephrase anything that I have not made clear, but make no mistake: it is not my responsibility to decide what you will do with information you do not understand.

 

It has been a point, but I don't think it was the crux of your argument. That was that the proposal may not be considered eugenics and that it is not advocating enforced breeding - that is the crux.

[Sayonara]

So we can promote one thing and allow it's antithesis to survive too? I'm not sure that that is logical. If we promote intelligence we must by definition be acting against lack of intelligence.

Do you remember when we promoted safe sex, and everyone said "hey, that's the best darned idea ever?", and sexually transmitted diseases vanished forever? Those were the days.

Simply promoting something does not require absolute exclusion of all other possibilities. An argument that it does is going to be as tenuous as my above analogy.

 

 

Sweeping statement, in your opinion and whatever else you like to call it. How do you know how other people conduct themselves when dating? How do you know that people don't have criteria.

What part of "people don't chose their partners on dates for the good of society, they do it for themselves" do you think is merely the product of my opinion?

 

 

Dating is by it's very nature an assessment of a potential mates suitability and is personal

...which I seem to remember saying, you know - when I said that dating was not social forethought, and that it was personal? I think it's a fallacy to fail to point out that not all dating is "mate selection" (at least where humans are concerned).

Remember you are the one who brought dating into this. Using social forethought (I know you query this term later on, I'll explain it at that point in the post) would not act as a replacement for dating, but for the criteria used. Even in that capacity it would only need to apply during mate selection, and is in no way compulsory.

 

 

so you don't know about anyone else.

I don't need to know how they choose who to go on dates with, only that they don't do it for the good of humanity. Stop with the straw man, or make it a bit more subtle and a lot funnier.

 

 

Depends whether you think mate selection based on a set of guidelines is good for society? Surely happiness is a factor too, if people are happy with their mate, they will be more beneficial to society as a whole.

Again with the guidelines. That is your condition, not mine. I don't particularly believe they are necessary, as I have already stated.

 

Perhaps happiness is necesary for the betterment of society, but one might reasonably presume this is highly dependent on the kind of society in question. You are also ignoring the fact that there is no necessity for "a slightly different method of mate selection" to rule out any chance of happiness (presumably a symptom of your insistence that some sort of enforcement would be required).

 

 

Surely everyone will have different opinions of what a good mate is. Surely that is just the society we live in now. People are allowed to mate with who they want to. Without overall guidance there is no point to what wolfgang is suggesting. The only body that is suitable to provide that guidance is the state.

I don't see any of those points as being issues. See the upcoming clarification of "social forethought".

 

 

So you deny that works of literary fiction that explore powerful political concepts are worthless in an argument like this? Why can I not draw a negative or positive parallel?

No, I do not deny that. I am simply saying that I personally object to the pratice of appealing to vague literary parallels as if they were a point of authority on the matter at hand, and that the comparison adds little value to the debate other than to paint my views with the "Big Brother" brush. I have as much right to refute the value of such parallels as you have to draw them, and I will not be coerced into a defensive position in this way when I have not advocated any such ideals as those conjured by the mention of Orwellian states.

 

 

What is wrong with that? Argument is not all counter-point, comparison is a central tool of argument too. Also, talking about historical events is also perfectly justified. I really fail to see what you point is and your objection seems to go against the style of argument used by many top thinkers in this area and others.

Leaving aside the fact that you just used an Appeal to Authority in order to justify an Appeal to Authority, I don't particularly see why I should be bound to your idea of how an argument ought to be conducted, particularly considering the number of known fallacies you have used thus far.

 

 

 

Didn't you see the word 'like'?

Yes, however I provided examples which you chose to overlook in favour of randomly bringing China (or, if you like, "like China") into the mix, so I have to question your motives. Also, I am not convinced that the issue of China is not one of Misleading Vividness.

 

 

 

hence the "". Go look at the UN website yourself, I haven't got time to trawl through it and provide data for your satisfaction. I am also wary of publishing data without the author's persmission.

It is not up to me to go off and find the information that backs up your arguments, period. I don't believe for a moment you actually think that's going to wash.

 

 

I said "maybe" indicating that it could be the case, but it may not be, because I don't know. Please do not veil your own mudslinging by hypotheticalising it.

See, I find this ironic. You ask me not to veil mudslinging, after just being called out on implying that I am arguing views I do not support. "I said maybe", added retrospectively upon complaint, is not an acceptable disclaimer when you are playing pin the opinion on the opponent.

In actual fact I would not claim that you preferred to see people in China suffer, because I have no evidence whatsoever that that is the case, nor have you said anything that would lead me to suspect it.

 

 

Dropping nukes on socially deprived areas is also a solution - get real. It's whether the solution is acceptable or not that is the point.

I don't dispute that. I am not saying that any randomly chosen form of eugenics is acceptable, nor would I attempt to argue that.

 

 

In your opinion.

I don't pretend that comment was anything other than my opinion, and I don't think any other case was implied.

 

 

Maybe all the cases I have come across so far I do not believe eugenics to be the solution. Why? Because I think it's problems outweigh it's benefits to the situations I have considered (including wolfgang's).

Could you summarise those problems? I think so far we had (potentially) reduced genotypic expression, lack of happiness, and more control to the state (although I have not seen any argumentas to why the last one is a problem). Were there any others?

 

 

 

As I said before, all the cases I have personally considered I can see no reason to use eugenics - maybe you disagree, but please respect my considered opinion.

Oh I do, even if it doesn't appear so. If I have given you reason to think I don't respect your opinions, then I apologise now (and retrospectively in advance, as it were, Milliway's Style).

 

 

What is "guided selection"? To me it means the state (or some offical body) give advice to people on who they should procreate with, this is still wrong, even without enforcement.

Why are you so intent on involving "the state" in everything? Society is quite capable of acting as a whole without any kind of pastoral intervention, as can be seen evidenced all around you every single day.

 

"Guided selection" simply means that the population as a whole (or indeed a majority) make a conscious effort to nudge the development of subsequent generations in a particular direction, whereas under normal circumstances the population would undergo selection without being conscious of the fact or the effects.

How this direction is determined is not necessarily required to lie in the prevue of a single governing body.

 

If one is going to ask "how is it right to do this", one should also ask why it is right to not do it, instead of assuming that we are starting out from a point of moral neutrality. Since we have the means and the knowledge, failing to maximise our potential as a species could be looked upon as criminal waste of life - particularly so now that the burgeoning human population is causing resource shortages and massive wealth rifts.

 

 

How can anyone know the product of a union? I mean we just have to look at ourselves and our siblings, we are all different and have different abilities from our parents. Both my parents left school when they were 16, yet I am doing a PhD. Me and my sister have very different abilities yet we come from the same parents.

Good question. If I were discussing a forced eugenics programme with a definite outcome in mind I'd need to answer that.

 

 

Maybe if you screened all zygotes for genetic traits then maybe, but wolfgang's proposal just suggests that putting "the right" people together will create better offspring, when that isn't true. What about being brought up in a loving and happy family? I think that is the most important thing.

You'd have to ask Wolfgang that. I am, for the most part, talking about mechanisms rather than goals.

 

 

You said it works perfectly well, but it doesn't. So you are wrong.

You are doing a PhD, and you don't know that "perfectly well" is a euphemism for "within tolerable limits"?

 

Yeah right, nice try.

 

 

Are the side-effect avoidable and mitigatable in all instances?

No. I hope you aren't going to use that as an excuse to condemn the approach across the board.

 

 

Pursuit of new technology and it's implementation has to be based on risk assessment. Whether these methods are used in combination or not is irrelevant to the discussion which is one of using one method only and whether that method would work.

I agree that new technology requires risk assessment, but how is that relevant here?

We have been using both eugenics and integrated crop management for centuries.

 

While you are technically correct that a discussion of combined approaches is not relevant to a discussion of a single method, this fails to prove anything. If we are to discuss the function of a system within another system, it is paramount that we consider the way interfaces and other systemic influences will affect (or be affected by) the new processes. Otherwise the whole exercise is purely academic and does not reflect real world events. That's pretty useless.

 

 

Yes but it also proves why wolfgang's proposal is flawed. Why have mating of intelligent couples unless it actually achieve more intelligent offspring? There must be an assumption the intelligence can be inherited, i.e. it is genetic, otherwise the whole excercise is pointless.

Only point one contravenes Wolfgang's proposal - the others do not. Note also that since I listed cases that may or may not be true, it is not "proof".

The case for a genetic basis of intelligence is for Wolfgang to argue, not me. Personally I don't think it's that much of a winner - I'm with you on that one.

 

 

I've argued this before. If you select for certain characteristics you are selecting against other characteristics and these will drop out of the gene pool. It happens in evolution.

You're assuming some kind of absolute selection, which is actually quite hard to find.

 

 

They have engaged in mate selection based on pedigree (much like dogs), which is a breeding programme. The gene pool slowly dimishes as members of the selected group become more closely related. Hence the Hapsburg lip and the prevelance of Haemophilia. The may not have been aware of genetic selection implicitly, but they were practicing it.

The first point I would raise here is that, while somewhat incestuous, their system is not closed.

Secondly you ought to consider that genetic variation increases as a function of population size, so if we are treating the royal families of Europe as a population, comparing them to the whole species or a country like the USA is actually quite misleading.

 

 

I shall in future assume that other parcipants in the discuss are completely unaware of the historical context of the discussion.

I'm afraid that is the best policy on public forums.

 

 

No it isn't

I'd love to hear why not.

 

 

Pots and kettles time I think here, best let this one drop.

Hmmmm.

 

 

You are basically saying that your preconceptions of intelligence lead you draw these conclusions. I would strongly disagree that a more intelligent population is highly likely to acheive any of those things. Many highly intelligent people are very destructive. Intelligence has no links with productivity as far as I am aware. Progressive is a vague term with a totally subjective meaning. Cultural Heights is also vague - but I would argue that it is more to do with knowledge and application of knowledge (i.e. education) than raw intelligence. At the end of the day intelligence is only useful if you harness it, by itself it does not achieve anything.

It is totally speculative and based on cultural preconceptions of what intelligence actually is.

I did start the paragraph with the word "maybe". I think this part of the discussion is what should be getting most attention.

 

Bear in mind that "that positive benefit may not occur" does not carry the same weight as "that would be a negative impact". Obviously this means little on its own, but I suspect that if the discussion goes on to consider the intelligence of a population in any depth, it might come in useful.

 

 

Eugenics is the improvment of society by the selection of genetic characteristics. I agree that intelligence may not be a simple genetic trait so it could not be eugenics strictly. However it is plausable that the natural intellectual ability may have some genetic factor and wolfgang wishes to select for that (hence guided selection) if wolfgang does not think it is genetic then selection would be pointless. Basically, you could argue that it is eugenics.

Yes we could, but that would surely hinge purely on the specifics of our final implementation, which in this case have yet to be determined.

 

 

Well this is the fundamental difference in argument here. I don't really see the way our species behaves (i.e. it's culture) can be seperated from the "biological" aspects of our species. Behaviour is part of biology and political and economic factors are part of our environment. I think you are on a hiding to nothing by trying to separate the man from the animal. Our culture affects our biology and ecology and vice versa. I didn't need to inform you of an extension to the same debate.

No, you are muddying the water here.

 

Your original implication was that eugenics would threaten our species, most likely due to large numbers of genotypes being completely selected out. That relates in no way to cultural changes that would be brought about as a result of the system itself being implemented.

 

 

Guided selection involves allowing a certain section of society (most likely the political elite) to decide what a "good" couple constitutes, when philosophically they cannot know.

The problem here is that if you accept the philosophical barrier to knowing what "good" is, you have to also accept the opposite case.

 

 

It also completely ignores nuture in favour of nature - -by stating that society will be improved by selective breeding, not by increasing social care and educational improvements.

Not necessarily. We don't know why Wolfgang wants to do this, other than the fact that he said he wanted to "help children" and alluded to improving their educational status. I have been arguing the case for a system that improves society as a whole, but I specifically avoided imposing any artificial constraints that would make the nuture aspect of social development redundant.

 

 

It denies that people mating with people they like or love and forming an emotionally strong bond is as important to producing good members of society as genetic make-up. It treats sex as a mere function and denies the emotional part of relationships.

Well, not really. You're taking this to unnecessary extremes, and ignoring facts such as the vast swathes of people who already form permanent relationships for reasons other than love or emotion, without the benefits I am discussing.

 

 

Basically I see it as an attempt to deny an important part of ourselves, a part that has given rise to many of our great cultural achievements and that is free will.

I agree that "full eugenics" would place us exactly in that situation, but I'm not in favour of that system nor do I think it has any real merit.

 

 

No, but you have attempted to justify eugenics as a viable solution in certain cirumstances - which I wholeheartedly reject.

No, I really haven't. Not in the sense that you intend it to mean.

Growing potatoes for food crops and seed is eugenics, and is needed in order to maintain a staple supply of carbohydrates in a form we are now accustomed to acquiring - are you telling me that is not a "viable solution"? Do we have some kind of horrifying moral breach that we need to justify to the potatoes?

 

 

I don't fail to grasp it, I just disagree with you. I also think it would be unfeasable to not have some form of enforcement.

I think you do fail to grasp it, because despite my ongoing insistence that I am not advocating eugenics as such, that is what you continue to argue against.

 

 

I agree with you if you wish to discourage teenage girls from getting pregnant (at that time). I want some clarification on what you mean by "socially aware" "social forethought" etc. I keep asking but you have yet to provide me with a satisfactory answer. Does it mean that people from certain sections of society should be discouraged from having children? Does it mean that people of certain intelligence should be discouraged from having children? If it does, why do it? What link is there that these people are more unfit parents that people of high intelligence and from high socio-economic groups?

Unlike eugenics, Social Forethought places few requirements on the population. It is simply a voluntary practice one can chose to adopt, which involves consideration of the present and near-future requirements and priorities of society as a whole.

The basic premise is that any given member of society is given the responsibility of making decisions based on how the outcome will affect the community as a whole, rather than themselves or their immediate family.

The only interventionary or regulatory involvement required of the state is the initial introduction of the concept and its associated benefits/caveats to the population.

 

This system could be argued to already exist, however I think we would be hard pressed to find people in any Western country who actually live like that.

 

 

The fact is you can't separate nature from nuture - this is the problem. Eugenics really is ascribing traits to genetics that are probably a mixture of many different genetic and environmental factors. The premise is flawed and it will not work.

Well, it depends what you mean by "separate" and what traits you are talking about. In the case of using eugenics to force population intelligence in a particular direction, I would tend to agree with you.

 

 

It has been a point, but I don't think it was the crux of your argument. That was that the proposal may not be considered eugenics and that it is not advocating enforced breeding - that is the crux.

No, that was what my argument has aimed to show. The crux of an argument is its central structural feature, not its conclusion.

I am not, as you said further up, attempting to "justify eugenics" so much as I am trying to show how the likely outcome of Wolfgang's idea would differ from a "fully eugenic" approach.

[SurfSciGuy]

I feel we have moved onto a socio-political debate about the extent of personal freedoms and what society as a whole has the right to alter to strive for improvement. As this can of debate involves use of political rather than scientific doctrines I'm not sure that it is appropriate to carry on the discussion here as we are not political theorists and this is not a politcal or social forum.

 

I agree that what Sayonara3 is suggesting is not eugenics, however I am uncertain that what he is suggesting is viable - partly because I have not received the clarification I asked for. The reason why I keep referring to eugenics is because I believe that was the suggestion and intention of the initiator of this thread. I also believe that it is impossible to create a eugenic programme without some level of coersion, which I see as against the political viewpoint I subscribe to.

 

Thanks for the debate.

[Sayonara]

Indeed, thanks for the debate - there has been a dearth of such discussions around these parts recently.

 

I think your reply #38 would probably be the best place to resume the original discussion from.

[Aardvark]

It might be possible to have a eugenics programme without infringing on peoples liberties anyway. Singapore is doing just that now.

 

But that's not the sole concern. How do you define desirable traits, and who does the definition? What some may view as desirable others may see as undesirable. Ultimately eugenics may be largely subjective rather than objective. Which ends any scientific status it may lay claim to.