[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is eugenics wrong? (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 2/28/2008 7:53:48 AM EDT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
|
|
Eugenics in the extreme, as in 'the .gov tells you when to breed and with whom' is obviously contrary to any semblance of personal liberty. Eugenics on a personal level, as in "I'm an intelligent, educated, healthy and attractive person and am determined to find a mate that has these same qualities" is practiced to some degree by lots of people. Very few folks choose a mate for cynical reasons. The Eugenics people fear is the .gov directed kind. |
|
If used to "design" offspring (by genetic tinkering, etc.), then I don't think it's wrong at all - but a great idea, and could hopefully be used to eliminated inherited genetic disease, and imperfections such as poor eyesight, predispositions to diabetes, mental illness, etc. If used to kill people because they do not meet an arbitrary standard, it is obviously the most henious atrocity possible. 
|
To me, thats just another way of phrasing the first part of your statement - only in the negative. |
The problem is, you cannot allow one type of selection and not another. If you allow people to "engineer" children without genetic disease and Downs syndrome, or hydrocephalia, etc. - then where's the line? It cannot be a matter of just life vs. death, right? Because hydrocephalia and mental retardation aren't a matter or life or death, they are jsut a matter of the QUALITY of life. And if we allow the argument for allowing engineering for quality of life, then it becomes almost impossible to draw the line. What about serious acne, or skin conditions, for example? They are "technically" cosmetic, but it woudl definitely improve someone's quality of life to not have to struggle with serious skin conditions their teenage years. What about intelligence? Is it "wrong" to genetically engineer kids to be smarter? What parent would NOT want that for their child? What right would government have to deny a parent that option? What about jsut physical attractiveness. I think we can all agree that attractive people have a higher "quality of life" than ugly people, right? It also raises the question of FREEDOM. Shouldn't people be FREE to breed any offspring they want. If I am tall and blond and blue-eyed, shouldn't I be allowed to marry a tall, blonde and blue-eyed woman in order to have kids that look they way I want? If technology can provide that for me, with whatever genetic therapy might be avialable, why is that wrong? I can have my blond, blue-eyed child, becuase it's what I think it awesome, and someone in India can have someone with just the right pale drown color skin that Brahmin parents desire, and some tribesman in African can get just the right shade that is desirbale in his tribe.
I don't see that at all. Killing a person that is not "acceptable" is completely different from engineering/designing the cells that you combine to make a person. |
How is a population of übermensch anything but a good thing? I know I sure as shit wish that my parents could have fucked with my genetics to keep me from starting to go grey at 18 and having asthma. Heart problems on one side of my family and cancer on the other, well, I definitely would prefer not to worry about either of those. And who wouldn't mind being absolutely ripped because their genetics say it's easy for them to increase muscle mass through exercise? Eugenics doesn't have to be about engineering someone who looks or behaves a certain way. It can be about creating stronger, healthier, smarter humans. We already practice a natural form of eugenics in our selection of sexual partners/SO's. I don't see anything wrong with taking it a step further. As long as we're not killing or hurting people to do it, I see nothing wrong with it. |
+1 If we have the ability to help future generations; why shouldn't we? |
|
Eugenics: Breeding an improved human species through purposefully directed evolution. Neonatal care is a part of Eugenics, as are genetic screenings and counseling before pregnancy. Eugenics is science that is designed to improve the quality and length of human life. |
The line should be drawn at life-threatening illnesses, or SERIOUS quality of life issues. Acne? Wash your face. Downs syndrome? Mental retardation? Sure. But decreasing the genetic variation in humanity can never be a good thing. Eliminating certain undesirable but non-life threatening traits could have unforeseen consequences down the line. Furthermore, isn't variety the spice of life? Why would we want to move towards what could potentially be a more homogeneous population? And why use science to do what you can just do yourself? If you want a blonde kid, go find a blonde woman, and hope for the best. Why use engineering to make your kid look a certain way? What if the 'look' you give him or her, no matter how 'awesome' you think it might be, isn't en vogue when they reach maturity? Would you want that responsiblity? You talk about freedom, and yet you're making life-long decisions about how another human being will look, act and feel without any input from them whatsoever. Sure, you have a degree of choice in choosing a partner to make a baby with, but that cannot be said to be the same thing as going down a list and checking off what characteristics you want your kid to have. My parents could have made some changes at my conception that would have made my younger years one hell of a lot easier for me. But its made me who I am, and I wouldn't want it any other way. To engineer a person before they are even born to have a certain sort of life strikes me as immoral beyond dispute. |
|
Know the pros and cons.  I say we bring back the wolves to drag down the stupid, slow and infirm. |
|
Human existence isn’t exactly rational. We, and the societies we create, operate according to rules that defy logic and reason. There’s a certain Moral or Natural Law that humans know exists which is often irrational. One of those Laws is that all people are born equally human. Notice that I didn’t say equal, because no one is really equal at birth. We are all different with different strengths and weaknesses. “Equally human” means that no person is any more or less human than anyone else. Everyone has the same basic rights that come with being a human being. Societies that follow this Law tend to prosper. They allow each individual to reach his full potential. Eugenics leads to the conclusion that some people are more human than others. And this leads to the conclusion that some people aren’t really quite all the way human. And when you start believing that some people are less than human… well… anyone who has studied history knows the end result. |
|
I see some typical reactions here which range from the liberal to the anti-abortion, as expected. There are really two types of applied eugenics. The first involves selective breeding and genetic manipulation to achieve an end result. This is done all of the time with animals. All dog breeds are the result of eugenics, as are livestock that are designed through breeding to be more productive. Additionally, modern strains of wheat, corn and other plants are all the result of eugenics. When you look at modern science, we practice eugenics all the time through prenatal screening for genetic defects. Then there is the second, more sinister, side of eugenics. This involves forced sterilization and activities like genocide. More often than not, these activities have taken place based upon pseudo-science which latched onto eugenics as an excuse or explanation. We obviously don't need that kind of noise going on in a modern society. My personal view is that there is nothing wrong with making a decision to produce a better child. If given the option, I would definitely like to choose certain genetic traits for my child and eliminate harmful ones. In the very near future, you will probably be able to have a "made to order" son or daughter which is free of the genetic weaknesses of the parents. I see absolutely no problem with that. If anything, it would cut down on the number of post-prenatal screening abortions which occur in this country. Plus...we will be a healthier nation. |
Modern medical technology is interfering with Darwin. Stupidity is no longer as fatal as it was. |
The other issue is that natural selection no longer applies to our species. As we continue to save lives that would not be saved in the wild, we allow those people the opportunity to breed that they would not otherwise have had. Thus, more genetic defects and undesirable traits are passed down through generations than would otherwise have been present. If anything, we need to use genetic manipulation to essentially "solve" the problems that nature would have otherwise weeded out of our population. |
And who gets to decide what traits (people) stay, and what traits (people) go? Sanger? Mengele? |
I'm talking about personal decisions made by parents relative to what those traits are. You are talking about a government mandate. Two totally different things... |
Probably doctors and scientists who want to remove/replace and or fix broken genes. |
That would result in a very poor substitute for natural selection, IMO. Nature selects what traits disappear based upon their vitality, people will say "aww, thats cute!" Two totally different things... Humans need to face the facts: we've beat evolution. We aren't like the rest of the animals. |
|
Quoted: I disagree wholeheartedly. Won't be long until everyone is blonde haired, blue eyed, well-endowed, bubbly, etc etc... whatever the popular 'design features' are. Use it to inhibit disease? Sure. But to 'design' people? How is that any different from Hitler breeding SS men? If Hitler was only breeding fashion models with euro-fag pouts he would not be widely seen as a monster. I have no problem with offering the least productive, most violent, and dumbest a strong financial incentive to get snipped as early as possible. I don't advocate putting anyone (other than liberals, and only on my bad days) in concentration camps. |
How many people with IQs over 115 are in prison? It's not because they haven't been caught yet. Low IQ makes like harder, especially these days, and that situation is likely to get worse. IQ is at least 70% heritable. If we offered both a cash and a deferred bonus to people with IQs under just 100, we would wind up cutting the prison population hugely in about 30 years. The issue isn't criminal genes (although you can make a case for impulse control being close to the same issue) but simply IQ. Up to about 145, before the real social maladjustment sets in, IQ typically helps. Up to about 130, there is a pretty direct economic relationship too. |
|
Ok, let me be clearer, then. What I am talking about in large part is correcting defective genes. In other words, if my genetic history pre-disposes my child to some sort of physical defect, then I would be able to choose to have that gene manipulated prior to, or immediately after, conception. Therefore, my child would not be born with that defect. The ability for a scientist to manipulate non-defective genes to select for desirable characteristics, such as strength, mental prowess, etc will also be possible in the future, and I don't really have a problem with that choice, either. After all, we are hard wired to find the best mate that we can in order to preserve physical characteristics that we find desirable. Why would it be wrong to extend that choice of selection past coitus? |
Definitely the vast minority of "exceptions". 
|
But poor and dumb people are out breeding rich, smart, & pretty people. |
However, dumb people (who are often poor) tend to have their kids early. An early intervention would remove that pool permanently, completely. |
|
There's really two ways to do eugenics. One is voluntary, as in people consciously deciding to breed with other people for desirable characteristics. That's fine and could even be good, so long as it is 100% choice. Then there is mandatory. Making people breed or preventing certain people from breeding. That's wrong. Killing people because of "undesirable" characteristics is even worse. |
And how wonderful would it have been if his parents would have removed that defective gene before conception... |
This has worked extremely well in some dangerously inbred Jewish populations. They are, however, a little touchy about calling it "eugenics". |
|
Point (1) - Government-ordered Eugenics is allways wrong... Period... Point (2) - There are too many variables to worry about right now in engaging in VOLUNTARY private-sector eugencis (eg genetic engineering of humans)... Such as weather attempts at improvement would narrow the gene pool too much... Or weather we would 'accidentally' create a suceptability to a killer disease... Etc.... Maybe something to consider after we understand genetics a bit better.... |
Bingo |
True, but that is a practical concern, not a moral one. According to the OP and the title, this thread relates only to the "wrongness" of eugenics. |
Don't really know , his mind may have made up for his body.. 
|