Nothing Wrong With Eugenics...?

[springscout]

Consider: eugenics is the elimination of the weaker traits which is, in essence, artificially assisted natural selection.

The only real reason why the previous eugenics movement was incorrect was because of the unscientific, racially-motivated basis--this also cast a bad light on eugenics.

The reason why we can't attempt it now is because we would be hard-pressed to link genes with physical and mental abilities.

But from a logical perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with eugenics. Of course, it is ethically dubious. But nobody can doubt its efficiency.

In any case, I'm young, naive, and stupid. Would someone care to enlighten me?

[ChimneySweep]

Define "elimination" - voluntary? coerced? state-enforced? and "weaker traits" -low intelligence? psychiatric/physical illness? sexual , religious or political orientation?
I suppose the efficiency of eugenics depends on the type of world you are trying to create. People are complex creatures who interact with others in complex ways. As the world is finding out in giant steps, the path to a "perfect world" is a rocky one.

[WindWip]

Quote by: springscout But from a logical perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with eugenics. Of course, it is ethically dubious. But nobody can doubt its efficiency.

Why do you think it's ethically dubious? Just curious

In any case, I'm young, naive, and stupid. Would someone care to enlighten me?

Great subject, it's an interesting idea to ponder.

[Tycoon]

Quote by: WindWip Why do you think it's ethically dubious? Just curious.

There's nothing ethically dubious about eliminating bad genes from the gene pool. The point is that the only methods by which to go about doing so are ethically dubious.

I mean, what, are we supposed to simply start forcing the less-intelligent members of our population to have abortions every time they get pregnant?

[Walrus]

Firstly, what is its aim. If it is to eliminate inherent illness like cancer, that would seem reasonable but if one has ideas of producing a superior human, then by what criteria do you define what is superior?

Secondly, how do you enforce it. If it is voluntary there will probably be those who will be opposed to it on on religious or ethical grounds, which will limit its electiveness. If legislation is used making it compulsory this could set a mandate which could be open to exploitation and used for the removal of those considered undesirable.

[Ender]

Eugenics isn't just morally dubious. It is revolting and goes against everything a free society should stand for. As hard as it is, if I were to put aside for a moment the gross implications of eugenics, there are non-ethical arguments against it. Eugenics implies we can design life better than God (or evolution if you prefer). There are biological reasons for imperfection.

Also read the Eyes of Heisenberg by Frank Herbert

[Angry Citizen]

Eugenics implies we can design life better than God (or evolution if you prefer)

Well, to be perfectly honest, we can design ethical codes far better than "God" ever could. Our science is only decades away from being able to design life that is by far the superior of anything we've seen as yet.

[Ender]

We'll see. I don't buy either of those, and certainly there's no reason to believe the latter. Inevitably we will design life. But to believe it won't be a process fraught with mistakes, tragedies and setbacks is naive.

[Rog]

Eugenics practices are in effect everywhere, just open your eyes.
its all about population control. The green movement is about making people believe we humans are the problem, if we dont stop our ways we all will die. crappy vaccines making people sick...

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: springscout In any case, I'm young, naive, and stupid. Would someone care to enlighten me?

If you're that stupid surely it would have been better for the human race if you'd never been born

Messing with the human gene-pool is the real potential catastrophe here... eliminate all those characteristics you arbitrarily deem to be "socially undesirable" and you run the huge risk of unwittingly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Genetic Diversity is a very healthy and neccessary thing. Narrow it down artificially, as with eugenics, and you significantly reduce the possibility of unknown adaptive genes coming to the fore when circumstances change, and we need them more than ever to survive as a species.

In such a scenario - who knows? Even the genes that presently lead to cancer cells might prove to be invaluable.

[minorwork]

Quote by: springscout Consider: eugenics is the elimination of the weaker traits which is, in essence, artificially assisted natural selection. The only real reason why the previous eugenics movement was incorrect was because of the unscientific, racially-motivated basis--this also cast a bad light on eugenics. The reason why we can't attempt it now is because we would be hard-pressed to link genes with physical and mental abilities. But from a logical perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with eugenics. Of course, it is ethically dubious. But nobody can doubt its efficiency. In any case, I'm young, naive, and stupid. Would someone care to enlighten me?

Eugenics is self directed evolution. It is an ethical practice.

"We have been God-like in our planned breeding of our domesticated plants and animals, but we have been rabbit-like in our unplanned breeding of ourselves." ~ Arnold Toynbee

A man having several sisters with breast cancer and a woman in the same circumstance are cautious in their planning of their progeny. Both are carriers of the errant version of the BRCA1 gene. There is a 1 in 4 chance their offspring will inherit both halves, a 1 in 4 chance their offspring will be carrier free, and a 1 in 2 chance their offspring will be carriers.

They use drugs and she releases many eggs which are flushed out and fertilized in a lab. The fertile eggs developed into 8 cell blastocystes at which time a single cell was taken from each and tested for the presence of the rogue version of the BRCA1 gene. 4 were discovered to be carrier and disease free. 1 was implanted in the woman's uterus, 3 were frozen, and the rest discarded. A girl was born that was free of the errant breast cancer gene.

That is an example of self directed evolution. BBC NEWS | Health | Breast cancer gene-free baby born

Eugenics is a loaded subject. Perhaps some guidelines. Genome Biology | Full text | The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics

[The Black Ghost]

Like anything, its just science.


It has the potential to do great things, or to ruin our humanity.

[minorwork]

Quote by: The Black Ghost Like anything, its just science. It has the potential to do great things, or to ruin our humanity.

Kind of like God?

[WindWip]

Quote by: Ender Eugenics isn't just morally dubious. It is revolting and goes against everything a free society should stand for.

Why does eugenics oppose what a free society should stand for?

As hard as it is, if I were to put aside for a moment the gross implications of eugenics, there are non-ethical arguments against it. Eugenics implies we can design life better than God (or evolution if you prefer).

First, I'm an atheist so the God argument doesn't work for me. In any case, evolution in itself shows that improvements can be made to the lifeforms that you believe God created, so I don't quite agree with that argument regardless.

Second, eugenics is practically the process of speeding up evolution, so we most definitely can design life that is superior to what exists today.

There are biological reasons for imperfection.

Did you have one in mind?

[WindWip]

Quote by: Walrus Firstly, what is its aim. If it is to eliminate inherent illness like cancer, that would seem reasonable but if one has ideas of producing a superior human, then by what criteria do you define what is superior?

Good question. I would start with working to eliminate susceptibility to heart conditions and other diseases/health problems. From there it's up for debate.

Secondly, how do you enforce it. If it is voluntary there will probably be those who will be opposed to it on on religious or ethical grounds, which will limit its electiveness. If legislation is used making it compulsory this could set a mandate which could be open to exploitation and used for the removal of those considered undesirable.

Oh I wasn't referring to the implementation of a nation-wide breeding program. I was thinking more on the lines of something similar to dog/horse breeding. A hundred or so people is all that's needed - they could easily do it with only volunteers.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Tycoon There's nothing ethically dubious about eliminating bad genes from the gene pool. The point is that the only methods by which to go about doing so are ethically dubious.

If you use only volunteers I think it would be perfectly moral. The results could help immensely with research.