Eugenics

[John Cuthber]

"While I am aware of the problems in dog breeding and the reasons for it, I'm not sure that eugenics coupled with modern genetic engineering couldn't over come the problems encountered by selective breeding. "

The kennel club also thought that.

[Moontanman]

"While I am aware of the problems in dog breeding and the reasons for it, I'm not sure that eugenics coupled with modern genetic engineering couldn't over come the problems encountered by selective breeding. "

The kennel club also thought that.

 

 

You are correct of course, except they do not or did not use genetic engineering. If dogs are an example of the best we can do then it's out of the question.

[Iggy]

What do you think about Eugenics? I personally think it would drastically change the world for the better.

 

By Eugenics I mean sterilizing everyone with an IQ below 100, and forcibly aborting any fetus which will be born with a genetic deformity, retardation, etc.

 

Also encouraging geniuses to procreate by giving them tax breaks and benefits for each child they produce.

 

Can you imagine a world where geniuses are a dime a dozen?

Classrooms full of gifted children, no more government funds wasted on special ed classrooms, all this we can achieve.

 

We just have to set aside pointless emotions and see the bigger picture.

It might be difficult to accept forced sterilization at first, but the benefits are more than worth it.

 

I envision a city on the Moon, and colonies on Mars in our not so distant future, should we adopt the practice of Eugenics,

because it would drastically increase the amount of future scientists that will be born.

We can't know in advance which mutations must be put an end to. It assumes that the person editing the code is capable of prescribing the indefinite future of the species which of course he cannot do because he clearly cannot know the indefinite future of the species. Eugenics in the terms that you have defined it is therefore ethically indefensible. If prior restraint doesn't work for books one couldn't think it would work on babies.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Iggy

[mrorville1]

Well studies say that Intelligence is inherited from parents anywhere from 40% to 80% . There was also studies conducted in Sweden on adopted brothers and sisters. For instance, when a mother adopted out her two sons , scientists decided to track their progress for well, scientific reasons. These two grew up in very different environments, and later ended up in very similar job fields, and tested very similar. So genetics does influence a person's future.

 

Since intelligence is inherited from parents as low as 40% and as high as 80% it can be safe to assume that eugenics would have a very good impact.I do think that an IQ 100 is too high for sterilization laws to focus on . I would say that a good bet would be an IQ of 85 would be a safe bet. It is not a question of would it be effective (It would be very effective),it is a question of would it ever happen,the truth is people see it as "stepping on human rights" which it is, but still. Eugenics laws should be implemented.

 

Truth of the matter is that the worldwide IQ is slowly decreasing and expected to decrease further. Why? the answer is because the people with the "lowest" IQs are having the "most " children. Since intelligence is inherited from 40 to 80 percent from parents. It can be safe to assume the world will be in trouble.It is the age old question of do ends justify the means? which it does.

 

As for whether its evil or not lies with this. A Eugenics program would not end up in murders or gassings, or mass killings. It is simply just preventing people from having kids. We are not murdering people , just stopping them from having kids. The world wide population is going to decrease at any rate. There is not enough food or water anyways for the population to expand. As it expands further there will be massive food and water shortages. As eugenics would obviously decrease the population it also solves the "there are too much people" problem.

 

As for education being a good supplement

 

Might I remind people that IQ is also linked to how much education a person pursues. You do not see a person with an IQ of 85 getting a doctorate,you do see the people with 140+ IQs getting doctorates. High school graduate IQs are around 90-100 I believe. Someone correct me if I'm wrong,I assume so because the average IQ of the United states is 98.

 

I believe that Eugenics programs should be implemented and anyone with an IQ below 85 should be sterolized.

 

 

 

It appears I clicked the post button more than once.This being my first post I do not know how to remove comments. So can somebody with administrative powers delete my extra comments.

 

 

[Arete]

I believe that Eugenics programs should be implemented and anyone with an IQ below 85 should be sterolized.

[jp255]

It could possibly be described as such, but as I tried to demonstrate previously with HWE calculations, removing or preventing individuals in which a deleterious, recessive genetic disorder is expressed does nothing to address the fact that the bulk of the reservoir in which these genes are held in the population are individuals in which they are not expressed. So removing the small proportion of individuals who suffer from the ailment from the breeding population will have a negligible effect on the prevalence of the disorder.

 

As such even if it is eugenics, it's ineffective eugenics.

Don't you think that dominant, highly penetrant diseases such as Huntington's disease should be eliminated? I think Huntington's disease should naturally eliminate itself by personal choice not to reproduce, or to reproduce via preimplantation diagnosis.

 

I definitely agree with you about recessive genetic diseases. Using eugenics to get rid of recessive genetic diseases will take a number of generations. Using PGD to prevent the occurence of the disease will eventually result in it being eliminated though, people must have knowledge that they are carriers however. Best bet is to wait for technology that allows for deleterious alleles to be replaced.

 

As for positive eugenics. I wouln't implement a positive eugenics program on a nation. Forced sterilisation is too extreme. Whilst I did see the point in one of your posts in the first page about jersey shore and twitter, however that is nothing more than mine (and probably your) personal dislike of how the majority choose to live their lives. It really doesn't make a difference though, they can still live like that, survive and reproduce. They can easily be as fit as someone with an IQ of 150. Intelligence isn't worth selecting for because of this, it has little relation to fitness. And finally the most important points: does Jersey shore prevent science from progressing? does twitter? To the point that you think positive eugenics should be enforced? Are there no unemployed individuals with <insert degree you value>, Which leads you to believe the positive eugenics program will result in increased scientific progression? I don't know where you live, but in my country you can make more money being a self-employed plumber than you can pursuing a career in scientific research. There are porbably some would-be scientists working in higher paid jobs because it is not valued highly. I'm not sure there is a desparate need for more high IQ individuals.

[marek]

Sorry to necro this thread, but it is my favorite topic.

Attributing genes as a cause for any type of socioeconomic issue is the ultimate taboo for the ruling class of western society. It is a thought crime, where even discussing the very idea can get you in a ton of trouble. The very premise of genuine genetic causes undermines much of ruling thought and doctrine. Of course, it's also completely true.

In my mind, some form of eugenics is the key to the problems of humanity. It is literally the most important issue I can think of. The issue for me isn't if we should pursue eugenics, but what are the best actions to take.

The low tech solution of the past was to control the breeding patterns of others by force or law. Even as a passionate eugenics advocate, I don't want to do anything that involves violence or intense coercion. This is a dead end, IMO.

The more realistic route is genetic engineering. Create completely opt-in treatments to enhance offspring. If you can sell parents a treatment to make their future children, smarter, healthier, or more physically fit, people will find a way to pay you for it and they will be grateful for the opportunity.

As I see it, the biggest roadblocks are technical engineering considerations, not politics or public opinion. Once the engineer finds a way, the rest of the world will follow.

It is the age of the engineer

[Arete]

 

As I see it, the biggest roadblocks are technical engineering considerations basic population genetics and evolution.

 

 

FIFY.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Arete

[John Cuthber]

 

Sorry to necro this thread, .

It is the age of the engineer

 

Then don't.

 

[overtone]

Attributing genes as a cause for any type of socioeconomic issue is the ultimate taboo for the ruling class of western society. It is a thought crime, where even discussing the very idea can get you in a ton of trouble.

That's because the only people bothering with that unpromising and unlikely approach so far have been moronic bigots attempting to justify their own undeserved privileges and excuse their community's miserable abuse of other people.

 

And it's a long way from taboo among the western ruling class - more like standard dinner table conversation, the underlying theme of much public discourse, and the single most significant factor in the structures of political power.

 

Truth of the matter is that the worldwide IQ is slowly decreasing and expected to decrease further.

That isn't true. The Flynn Effect is global.

 

And if it were true, the connection with "intelligence" would still be unknown.

 

Aside from the not-so-bright adherents of rightwing nationalism actually killing a good share of the intellectual elite of Europe between1933 and 1944, and expelling the rest,

 

(eugenics programs, being goofy ideas in the first place, always have serious management problems - the people advocating and running them never seem to realize that culling themselves from the breeding pool would be an easily accomplished step forward)

 

and it's hard to find a definite arena of decreasing intelligence in the modern world (since agriculture displaced the better selected populations of nomadic herders and hunters all over). Maybe in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War, when Texas was colonized from the gutters of the eastern cities? Australia when the indigenes got pushed out by the diseased dregs of England's slums? What's happening in Papua New Guinea in the aftermath of WWII?

Edited June 5, 2014 by overtone

[Ophiolite]

 

In my mind, some form of eugenics is the key to the problems of humanity. It is literally the most important issue I can think of. The issue for me isn't if we should pursue eugenics, but what are the best actions to take.

1. Intrinsically random methodologies of reproduction have served us well for three and a half billion years. Can you justify your claim that it is time for a change.

2. We've seen how well a free market works for establishing equality of opportunity. Have you read The Time Machine?

[Dekan]

Intrinsically random methodologies of reproduction have served us well for three and a half billion years. Can you justify your claim that it is time for a change.

 

For three and a half billion years, life has relied on cruel, random methods of reproduction. These methods must strike everyone as morally offensive.

 

But at least these old methods eventually bore fruit. They produced modern Homo Sapiens. A dramatically new species. A real step-change in evolution. Because this species has the power to throw away all the randomness and cruelty. And consign them to the dustbin of history. Replacing them by scientific methods.

 

It is indeed "Time for a Change". Homo Sapiens can take control of its own future. By a planned scientific program of eugenics. Aimed at constantly improving the human breeding-stock. Not by the cruel and disgusting methods of natural section, but by offering simple financial incentives. Such incentives were widely, and rationally, discussed in the early years of the last century. Before "Eugenics" became simplistically equated with the image of sadistic SS guards, whipping women and children into gas-chambers.

 

Unfortunately from a scientific viewpoint, this travesty of Eugenics has become ingrained into the popular imagination. To such an extent, that even scientists, who ought to know better, are not immune from its crass falsehood

 

But the image is there. And it prevents any rational discussion. So is there any point, nowadays, in trying to discuss Eugenics on the forums.

 

Won't it only produce a knee-jerk reaction - "Doh" - "That's "Hate-Speech" - "Ban It"!

[CharonY]

Actually eugenics was well looked-upon well before the rise of national socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

 

And looking back what was decided to be inferior changed quite a bit (e.g. classed based systems where workers were considered unfit. One big issue is of course that for the most part it is not based on science but rather on political agenda and silly narratives. You can bet that if something like eugenics would be re-instated it would be targeted against a small group without much political clout (as e.g. in voting power). How supportive would you be if you would be on the receiving end of forced sterilization because someone states that you have a marker that is associated with something negative (whatever it would be)?

 

As others have stated, and ideal gene pool tends to be a diverse one. However eugenics program tend to promote one form of inbreeding or another, which further highlights the discrepancy between eugenics programs and scientific knowledge.

Edited June 5, 2014 by CharonY

[Arete]

For three and a half billion years, life has relied on cruel, random methods of reproduction. These methods must strike everyone as morally offensive.

 

But at least these old methods eventually bore fruit. They produced modern Homo Sapiens. A dramatically new species. A real step-change in evolution. Because this species has the power to throw away all the randomness and cruelty. And consign them to the dustbin of history. Replacing them by scientific methods.

 

It is indeed "Time for a Change". Homo Sapiens can take control of its own future. By a planned scientific program of eugenics. Aimed at constantly improving the human breeding-stock. Not by the cruel and disgusting methods of natural section, but by offering simple financial incentives. Such incentives were widely, and rationally, discussed in the early years of the last century. Before "Eugenics" became simplistically equated with the image of sadistic SS guards, whipping women and children into gas-chambers.

 

Unfortunately from a scientific viewpoint, this travesty of Eugenics has become ingrained into the popular imagination. To such an extent, that even scientists, who ought to know better, are not immune from its crass falsehood

 

But the image is there. And it prevents any rational discussion. So is there any point, nowadays, in trying to discuss Eugenics on the forums.

 

Won't it only produce a knee-jerk reaction - "Doh" - "That's "Hate-Speech" - "Ban It"!

 

Everything you just posted has been thoroughly debunked already in this very thread, multiple times - e.g.

 

As thoroughly discussed in this thread already -

a) For a multi-genic, environmentally correlated, abstractly interpreted trait like intellect, there is so many interactions between variable genotypes that a selective breeding regime is highly unlikely to produce a predictable outcome.

b) Any selective breeding regime decreases Ne (effective population size) which reduces the genetic variability of a given population, which has demonstrably negative impacts on the evolutionary potential of the population in question.

c) Selective elimination of individuals in which recessive deleterious conditions from the breeding population will not significantly reduce the expression of those genes, which are carried without expression in a much larger proportion of the population than the proportion in which they are expressed e.g. for every sufferer of an autistic condition, there are 35 silent carriers of the associated genes.

 

So eugenics violates basic population genetic principles, reduces the evolutionary potential of a population and ultimately doesn't work.

[Dekan]

Actually eugenics was well looked-upon well before the rise of national socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

 

How supportive would you be if you would be on the receiving end of forced sterilization because someone states that you have a marker that is associated with something negative (whatever it would be)?

 

 

I already pointed out that Eugenics was well looked upon in the early years of the last century. Before National Socialism.

 

As regards your "forced sterilization", there you go again! You seem determined to put across a bad view of of Eugenics. It need not involve "forced sterilisation".

 

But you obviously want it to, so you can make it sound unacceptable.

[Arete]

But you obviously want it to, so you can make it sound unacceptable.

 

 

And obviously you don't want it to, so your ignore the fact it violates basic population genetics and evolutionary theory.

[John Cuthber]

I already pointed out that Eugenics was well looked upon in the early years of the last century. Before National Socialism.

 

As regards your "forced sterilization", there you go again! You seem determined to put across a bad view of of Eugenics. It need not involve "forced sterilisation".

 

But you obviously want it to, so you can make it sound unacceptable.

Quite a lot of ideas were considered positively, until we knew better. Eugenics is one of them.

Using the fact that it was once popular as a justification for doing it now is a logical fallacy.

 

People generally want to breed. Stopping them doing so is de facto sterilisation- the method is unimportant.

So, perhaps you can explain this bit

"It need not involve "forced sterilisation"."

As far as I can tell, it does.

"But you obviously want it to,"

Nope, it does no matter what I want.

"so you can make it sound unacceptable."

It is unacceptable so "making it sound unacceptable" is just a matter of describing it.

[CharonY]

 

I already pointed out that Eugenics was well looked upon in the early years of the last century. Before National Socialism.

 

It is telling that you miss the obvious part of it. Eugenics was not not only discredited because the Nazis applied it (though on the political level it clearly was the case), but also because it is bad science leading to very bad societal decision. But the real issue is that it was not seen in a negative light because people were so certain that they were right by using heavily extrapolated pseudo science as justification. Once we are certain that certain traits are undesirable, it would be better to get rid of them, no? How certain are you that you are not one of them? It is almost sad that the proponents of eugenics almost invariably establish criteria that excludes themselves from being selected against.

 

It is also ironic that a person that has a severe distrust of politicians would entrust them with the regulation of one of the most personal decision one could make.

[Dekan]

Thanks to Arete, CharonY, and John Cuthber and others for your posts.

 

I will reply tomorrow.

 

Right now, it's coming up to 10.15pm local time, and I'm getting tired. Also, the beer has run out. And I can't post without its stimulus. Sad, but true!

 

See you soon.

[Acme]

Actually eugenics was well looked-upon well before the rise of national socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

...

Notice that in your linked article, J.H. Kellogg is listed as an early proponent of eugenics. A Seventh Day Adventist, he was intimately associated with William S. Sadler who studied with Freud, Jung, and others in Germany. Sadler is the man responsible for The Urantia Book which among other whacko ideas is rife with promotion of eugenics as an ideal. (Whites being the ideal of course, but referred to as the 'Violet race' in the book.) Alas the book continues to be promoted and translated to other languages as a work channeled from spirits and per se God.

[Ten oz]

Eugentics has 3 major flaws IMHO:

1 - Bias of the group with the power/ability to implement it. Throughout history we have persecuted various types of people. Being Gay, black, Jewish, Irish, and etc are all things previous generations would've bias against. Implementation would always be a matter of the prevailing zeitgeist. Only in reflections from future generations is it ever known which zeitgeists endured and have value.

2 - How is intelligence tested? Studies have shown IQ tests are limited. A more thoroughly educated person is more familiar with the format and normally performs better. How do you test a persons capacity to learn though? How do you test someone's ability to invent or think of something new? If the goal is to improve the human mind shouldn't potential be more important than displays of cultivated knowledge? I just don't see how we'd messure the difference.

3 - evolution needs randomness. Survival of the fitness isn't intelligence or advances adaptaition. It is about environment. Many successful species have gone extinct. Whether it was a new disease none of them were lucky enough to have a mutation to be immune to or a volcano erupting and devastating an ecosystem they relied on. Diversity is a key to long term survival. We can't predict which mutations will be best when something unplanned for happens. Which also can't predict whose offspring will have a new useful mutation.

[John Cuthber]

"the beer has run out. And I can't post without its stimulus. Sad, but true!"

What an unfortunate trait.

I trust that you have done th decent thing and ensured that you don't have children to pass it on to.

[Ophiolite]

I envision a city on the Moon, and colonies on Mars in our not so distant future, should we adopt the practice of Eugenics,

because it would drastically increase the amount of future scientists that will be born.

If we implement your plan I wish to introduce a single modification. Rather than compulsory sterilisation of those who have IQs less than 100, I wish to sterilise those who are unable to understand when the word number should be used instead of amount. To be on the safe side immediate elimination would be preferred. Are you OK with that approach?

[tentacle]

i thought we were done with eugenics in ww2. obviously we didnt. eugenics ,and similar ideas such as malthusianism, are lysenkoism.

[DevilSolution]

If we implement your plan I wish to introduce a single modification. Rather than compulsory sterilisation of those who have IQs less than 100, I wish to sterilise those who are unable to understand when the word number should be used instead of amount. To be on the safe side immediate elimination would be preferred. Are you OK with that approach?

 

number is amount by proxy, or extension, which ever really......

 

As reference to the thread, who will clean your toilets, collect your garbage and make make your clothes if by your theory everyone will be of genius IQ.

 

Also creativity requires no IQ at all....As is shown by your creative future