Eugenics good or bad?

[Samildanach]

I happen to be a supporter of the idea of Eugenics and while not supporting hitlers methods I do support the idea of genetic engineering to improve the human populace.

There are several definitions of eugenics here are some of the more common ones.

A doctrine which holds that the human race can be "improved" by selective control of breeding to eradicate less "desirable" traits in society. The supporters of eugenics argue that social problems are caused by inherited genetic traits in people which can be bred out to resolve the problem for future generations.

the use of genetic engineering to produce a superior race.

A spin-off of the 'survival of the fittest' ideas of Charles Darwin (see Darwinism), which was popularised by his cousin Francis Galton (1822-1911). He defined eugenics as 'the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, whether physically or mentally'. These ideas eventually led to the euthanasia practised by the Nazis and to the Holocaust. They were also put into practice in a less lethal but still damaging way by many governments, including those in the US, Britain and Sweden, especially in the treatment of people with learning difficulties

Literally "good birth" in Greek. A movement prevalent in western Canada and elsewhere during the early twentieth century to prevent the reproduction of children by persons deemed to have mental deficiencies.

[Chris the Chees]

Bad bad bad bad bad bad.

Giving people a greater physical advantage than other people, leads to all kinds of problems. Imagine being the 'lesser' person!

[G. Adams]

Any sort of government encouragement of eugenics is objectionable. As for someone personally looking for a partner based upon genetics, fair enough, it's what we do unconsciously anyway.

[tinybear]

Why is this thread in the Boiler Room? That's what I wanna know.

[Pooeypants]

By Sam's choice, because he knows that this is a controversial subject.

[tinybear]

So are the topics in the debate forums. I don't get it. Anyway, it's thread starter's choice, I suppose. Sorry for asking...please carry on.

[Pooeypants]

There is no where it can lead except for a free for all slag match against any supporter of eugenics.

[Paavo]

It's the "human species," not the "human race."

Anyway, I don't see why we should NOT ingage in some kind of Eugenics. Natural selection has made us evolve to what we are -- now, natural selection is in many ways obsolete. I think the smartest and most able should be encouraged to have kids, that's all, no sterilization programs or some other horrible clichés.

[tinybear]

Ironically, the more educated and affluent couple are, the less kids they have. Do you not notice?

[Pooeypants]

The whole concept of living in a civilisation is to fight nature, resist the dog eat dog nature. The logic behind Eugenics may be sound but our morality cannot accept it.

[Paavo]

Ironically, the more educated and affluent couple are, the less kids they have. Do you not notice?

Yes, all the more reason to fight that trend, no?

The whole concept of living in a civilisation is to fight nature, resist the dog eat dog nature.

Whose concept?
The laws of nature will be there, civilisation or not, one can ignore them, of course -- but should one?

The logic behind Eugenics may be sound but our morality cannot accept it.

Again, whose morality? Would it not be moral to, say, lower the frequency of genetic 'bugs' in our coming generations?

In a sense, we're already practicing Eugenics and always have; A beautiful and healthy-looking woman is more likely to find a mate than a fugly one is, at least in principle.

In fact, I don't think it needs to be a case of Eugenics, but one of counterweight to Dysgenics.

[Paavo]

These ideas eventually led to the euthanasia practised by the Nazis and to the Holocaust.

^ Don't know who said that, but I think that's a silly statement.
It's like saying "The ideas of equality led to the murder of tens of millions of Kulaks by the Bolsheviks."

[Pooeypants]

I recommend that you read "Evolution and Ethics" by Thomas H. Huxley. It's an old article but can be found in Evolution edited by Mark Ridley.
I'll post some extracts when I have the time.

[Paavo]

Quote by: Pooeypants I recommend that you read "Evolution and Ethics" by Thomas H. Huxley. It's an old article but can be found in Evolution edited by Mark Ridley. I'll post some extracts when I have the time.

Never heard of the book, post some extracts, would be great.

I'm not all that into this issue, so I'm talking very generally.

On a sidenote, just saw this on BBCnews.com;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4575551.stm
Interesting.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Paavo ^ Don't know who said that, but I think that's a silly statement. It's like saying "The ideas of equality led to the murder of tens of millions of Kulaks by the Bolsheviks."

I'm not so sure. This link leads to a book detailing some rather bleak truths about the people who actually practice this sort of thing. The implacations come from the files of the very people he implicates, so the author leaves very little to dispute.

http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/


I have not read this book yet, but I did see the author speak on C-SPAN, and participate in a question, and answer forum after the speech.


Very revealing.

[Paavo]

I'm not so sure. This link leads to a book detailing some rather bleak truths about the people who actually practice this sort of thing. The implacations come from the files of the very people he implicates, so the author leaves very little to dispute.

But this guy talks about the nazis' version of Eugenics. The National Socialist regime might've taken a very keen interest in Eugenics, but it's not like everything Eugenics revolves around Hitler and his thugs in the 30's and 40's.
Again;
Nazis liked Eugenics -> Nazis misused it -> Eugenics is bad.
Communists liked equality -> Communists misused it -> Equality is bad.

[Prometheus]

The nice thing about eugenics is that since it's all based on statistics, it's esy to do computer simulations.

I have worked in C++ (a programming language) with a lot of evolutionary algorithms - simulating evolution and the like. It's pretty fascinating stuff. Anyway, I did a simulation using the US population, and the allelic frequencies for epilepsy. Even if you kill avaryone with the disease, it takes about 1000 years to get a 1% decrease in incidance. This has to do with the way most traits are inherited.

The upshot of all this is that though eugenics works in theory, it's practicality is almost nill.

[tman_ndsu08]

Until nanotechnology allows us to build a human DNA molecule from scratch cheaply.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Until nanotechnology allows us to build a human DNA molecule from scratch cheaply.

Well technically, that isn't eugenics. Eugenics is manipulating the genes in a culture at large through breeding and more "expediant" means. You are talking about genome engineering, and you are right about needing to be able to synthisize it. Currently we can only build stretches up to 6 or 7 kilobases in length. A genome is 3 gigabases.

As well as the engineering barrier, there is an even larger, and theoretically more difficulty - that of deciding what to build. The problem is that we don't have any idea how to make the genome better on a large scale. Polygenic traits are so hard for us to track right now, that even being able to build an entire genome wouldn't get us far. We need much more powerfull computers, and more people working in bioinformatics (one of my majors by the way).

And we can't even start on the bioinformatic work until we get cheaper genome sequencing so we have more data to look at. The current cost of sequencing a genome is 3 million USD. Thats down from the first one that cost 4 billion, but the goal has to be 1000 USD before we can get that far.

[Pooeypants]

Actually, I think you mean 3 giga base pairs.