Eugenics, the science of creating a better race by genetic purification.
Is it a pesuedoscience, or is it a social philosophy?
Printable View
Eugenics, the science of creating a better race by genetic purification.
Is it a pesuedoscience, or is it a social philosophy?
well the science is certainly real, and possible. We already know that advances in human evolution will probably take place rapidly within the next 100-500 years. Futurists have already predicted at least 3 new branches of homo sapien, with 2 of them being (in a related field) part bionic or cybernetic. The advances of the species will only be advanced by genetic scientific research leading to fuller lives for everyone on earth. In a hundred years or so, aging will have been almost wiped out, for instance.
Depends on what you mean by purification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Side note: When the Lemur was in university, he got tired of being asked "What's your major?" So he started answering with either "Phrenology" or "Eugenics." If the questioner laughed, that meant we could be friends. If they struggled on and pretended to know what either one meant, it was an ominous sign. If they honestly admitted to not knowing the meaning, they were probably okay.
Fascinating. Personally I would love to see your DNA code, Gawain, Tribesmen, and Devastation Dave all mixed together for one of these new branches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
What an advance for mankind that would be.
:gathering:
(Disclaimer: the comment above is meant for entertainment purposes only, and while laughter may result, or offense may result neither is the intended outcome, although the later is permited on the forum.)
I would call it a science, as heartless as it may be it does what predators are now failing to do.
but i disagree with 1 comment made, i doubt humans are evolving into uh bionic people. unless the traits of those mechanisations are passed on to offspring it is unlikely and if anything does weaken the species by allowing weak genes survive on a machanised crutch.
well, the combining of biological and mechanical or electronic material is advancing at a remarkable pace, there are already bionic men among us with whole appendages that are robotic and controlled by electronic impulses from their brains just like their normal muscles would be.
:stunned:
:creep:
Wouldn't that depend on how you determine desirable traits? The type of eugenics used by the Nazis, for example, was certainly not a science. They just looked at external factors and decided if you were inferior or not.
Rather a pseudoscience, while breeding can be scientifically done, the basis of "better" is too vague (better on what? better how?), that's why it has a tendency to become quite cruel and heartless.Quote:
Originally Posted by master of the puppets
Unless I'm mistaken on the meaning of Social Philosophy I would say that Eugenics is a pseudoscience, while the occurence of the idea of Eugenics is a Social Philosophy.
better as in not susceptible to diseases, better skin, eyes, etc. i think theres an article on wiki somewhere about what the perfect human will look like in another ten thousand years or so. lots of little changes.
ok well when i think of better as in darwinian terms as better suited to its enviroment. For people in this day and age almost no flaw or disability will definatly stop reproduction but any good eugenics today would most likely focus on breeding people with no susceptability to heart disease, diabetes, cancer ect. other than that there is no survival reason for strengh or speed or cunning, only smarts health and beauty matter for reproduction.
no, they will alter skin to make it resistant to sunburning, for example. human being also no longer need hair which is why it is evolving out of the species.
Not completely true, evolution occurs because of natural variations in the species and the effects of those differences on reproduction. currently while there are genes for hair loss there are as many for retaining hair but neither favor or disfavor childbirth the two forces should remain relatively equal. its the same reason we still have pinky toes and the appendix, they are vestigial structures but likely to remain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Odin, that is the most terrifying thought I've had all day. Please stop before my brain shuts down trying to block out this thought. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
A small point here mate, both of those are untrue (sort of). You can certainly live without an appendix, but it does serve some function in that it provides some immune system functionality. People who have had them removed sometimes are more susceptible to diseases and infections, though not in a big way. In principle you are right in that it is considered "expendable", medically. :grin: Your little toe on the other hand is integral to your sense of balance, people who have had them amputated/removed have noted significant impacts to this sense. You can live without it/them obviously, but you probably won't be as well off as you were beforehand.Quote:
its the same reason we still have pinky toes and the appendix, they are vestigial structures but likely to remain.
It's been tainted as a pseudoscience since the Nazi's adopted the once-popular idea.
I rate it in the same bucket as social darwinism, aka something only a bunch of heartless scum sincerely make efforts to achieve.
Why?
Any large-scale adoption of Eugenics would require massive violation of human rights, something like China's one-child policy being pushed that step further into "no-child" policy; add that to the social implications of those who aren't born "superior" genetic-wise and you get one hell of a dystopia in creation.
No thanks. Human beings are far more complex than the current human understanding of genetics to pursue something like Eugenics. Besides, human values -- and the environment -- changes. What are you gonna do if suddenly the "better" guy with the "best" genetics turn out to not be so "better" after all when Mother Earth decides to play a trick on all of us? Oops we're sorry we forced our uncles not to breed?
So you prefer bald women?:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Eugenics is ever implemented would likely violate human rights, which most people would probably find unacceptable,
another problem is that it is sometimes not as simple as one person being healthier than another, although there are of course many genetic diseases that it would be good to get rid of, there are other ''desireable'' elements that would depend more on enviroment, someone with a partucularly strong immune system would be great at fighting infection but more prone to allergys for instance.
Also most of us are a pretty mixed bag, some good genes some bad ones i doubt you would find anyone with a genome faultless enough for Eugenics. Although most people can reproduce there is still an element of selection by who manages to reproduce the most, i dont know what the result of such selection would be! :laugh4:
I think the key here is it being voluntary vs. involuntary. Involuntary is most definitely a violation of people's rights. Voluntary though is a different story. If I knew there was a 'near failsafe' way to isolate a specific gene in my forthcoming unborn child (ren) that would say... reduce or eliminate his/her risk to some of the cancer strains that my family seems to be prone to, the wife and I'd do it in a heartbeat. In terms of other things, such as attempting to increase intelligence/muscle mass/dexterity/etc, I dunno. Keep thinking of Shatner screaming "KHAAAANN!!!" and of the Augments. :grin:
I am gonna basically sum up for what eugenics basically means.
Everyone here knows Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection where in a species, the weakest will die out and the strongest surivive which through long periods of time will improve the species.
Now think of us humans. With our technology, those who would die normally like those with diabetes or other chronic disease related to one's genetics can often lead a full and fufilling life and is able to have children and pass on their genes. Even those with sever mental diseases like Autism are cared by our society due to morals even though through natural selection, they should die.
I agree with everyone that this is morally the right thing to do, but as time pass by a lot, the human genome pool will slowly, but surely get corrupted and filled with so much mutations and genetic disease that our species as a whole will become extinct since our technology won't be able to catch up with genetics.
Eugenics would have those with diseases that potentially threaten the human gene pool be rendered unable to reproduce children at least. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are killed but rather they arent allowed to pass on their genes which should theoretically mimic what would normally happen through natural selection and allow the human race to evolve positively.
Right now, this problem is too far away for it to overpower the morality argument and allow for eugenics, but think of this. Suppose that in lets say 100,000 years the human race still survive and has some massive space empire, but it is in danger of collapsing due to massive genetic diseases present in a large portion of the population. Would you be against killing maybe even 50% of the population just to make sure the species survives as a whole??
We were well on our way until the russian fiasco. :wall:
It might be worth explaining in more detail exactly what you mean by that statement. Given the subject matter and your previously expressed opinions, it could be interpreted to mean something quite unsavoury.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
You're gonna tell us that it's unlikely that we won't advance much further in genetical engineering than we are today after 100.000 years? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
While genetical engineering might end up opening Pandoras box, that particular issue is unlikely (people with poor genetical material also have a tendency to become sterile more often).
Eugenics, when done correctly, can bring great wonders to the human race. By removing bad genes, either through genetic altering of embryos, embryo selection or through plain out sterilisation, many crippling diseases that are the bane of many peoples lives could be easily removed.
Wow, i sound like a scientist. Go me.
True, but look at IVF! We can already make many otherwise sterile couples have children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
And with massive support networks in place, "unfit" mothers can have repeated kids that are then taken into care for others to look after.
Currently we appear to be running (in the UK at least) a system where bad traits are encouraged.
~:smoking:
That's precisely what annoys me about this country. People say it's their choice to have children, even if they are genetically defective in some way. Pah. Bad genes are bad for the human race.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I'm a firm supporter of eugenics. I believe that the cleansing of the gene-pool shall lead to a brighter future, IN WHICH ALL UNTERMENSCHEN ARE REMOVED, AND THE ÜBERMENSCH SHALL REIGN SUPREME, PAVING THE WAY FOR A GOLDEN NEW REICH!
Am i sounding a bit too much of a nazi?
Seriously though, eugenics is fine, it's just that thanks to Hitler and his pals people now associate eugenics with mass-genocide and large ovens.
We all know, so there is no need for him to reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I prefer letting 'nature' decide who is fit and who isn't. I might be a bit of a conservative (in the literal way) but it's worked for the last couple of million years...
'Bad' genes can result in unexpected benefits in the long run, if we create a genetically homogeneous population the chances of getting wiped out by a single desease will increase exponentially. I prefer to take the bad with the good, if we start selecting we'll never really get better than we are now, unless we start engineering ourselves, and we know way too little to do that.