Printable View
Been reading a lot of books about evolution lately, and that incest thread elsewhere in the Backroom got me thinking: a part of natural selection is the demise of less advantaged individuals in favour of more well-adapted/tougher individuals. This fact is celebrated in numerous books and Discovery Channel specials. So why is there such stigma when the same principle is applied to human beings -- i.e. eugenics?
Well, I think we had the topic here before and one more rational point was that those who are healthy now, may not be healthy anymore when the conditions on the planet change or a new disease comes up etc., having a broad base of different genes could help humanity survive then. Apart from that there's a belief of equality and that everyone should get the same chances to live and have fun, or in other words, if you were unfortunate enough to fall into the category of "not fit enough for life so we're gonna get rid of you", would you just happily agree? Which standards would have to be applied anyway? Whose standards are the best? Are black people better because their skin is more resistant to sunlight which might be important due to global warming? Are white people superior because some say so? Or are the Asians superior because they are many and coming up economically? Or do you think more along the lines of getting rid of uhm, sick people, but then again, who's sick enough to qualify, you got glasses? Sorry, but please follow the guy with the gun... :juggle2:
Humans have civil liberties - most would argue that animals don't. Further, I like to think we have evolved beyond the simple dog-eats-dog idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
Also, who would determine who can no longer breed? How would we know that their view was correct?
Sounds like Husar is building up on his plan... ~:joker:
Why wouldn't there be ? I can see plenty wrong in treating human beings like some kind of animal stock to be "improved" by selective breeding; nevermind now that you're going to have a kind of hard time defining the content and aim of that "improvement".
Plus biological evolution stopped being important to humans long ago anyway. Too slow and uncertain. Cultural evolution does the job much better.
And, of course, the Nazis. They did a very thorough job demonstrating what exactly is wrong with the very basis of that kind of thinking and where it leads to.
Eugenics? When can I start building my clone army, to be led of course by the genetically superior Khan bred with superior genes to be stronger, smarter, and better looking? Human beings manufactured on an assembly line basis. Isn't that a little frightening?
There really should be no problem to a secular society. Fortunately for us all - a sizable portion of human beings still believe in a purpose and value to Human life given to us by God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
There are so many facets to human life and so many possible genetic combinations, that asserting the right to meddle in such matters implies precise knowledge of exactly how the environment, culture and the rest of human existence operate and what can be considered advantages and disadvantages beforehand - in other words, sheer arrogance bordering on claiming omnipotence. And if the latter isn't the case, then what improvement can man bring to an age-old process?
Let alone the nature vs nurture questions. There are more than enough examples of people who in theory are genetically fine failing in life, whereas there are also plenty of examples of people who have overcome their physical issues and shone.
Edit: TuffStuffMcGruff, I'd like to think that my post illustrates that your apparent lack of faith in your secular fellow man's morals is unfounded.
God has nothing to do with it, indeed a humanist secular society, I would think holds values of human rights and equality far beyond that of a God fearing society. But let us not divert the intention of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
As to the question it is pretty simple to answer - who decides. Who decides which nationality, creed, personality, physical attributes etc are worthy of continuation and those which are not. Evolution is different to wholesale destroy of a creed in the name of perfection or a 'superior' being, within the Human species. Evolution is already happening amongst humans, right now and scientists think the process is speeding up - though of course it still takes a relatively long time. Killing, letting others be killed or killing themselves - is something quite different and there is one question which makes the whole premise of one creed being better than others look laughable - who decides.
It is quite impossible if looked at a serious, intellectual level.
Tuffy's claim also rather falls apart in the face of the actual historical reality of eugenistic and racial-hygienic policies; those were chiefly practiced (by just about all "Western" states too...) in the first half of the 20th century, back when the average Joe and society in general was considerably more devoutly religious than is the norm today.
There are no such things as good or bad in terms of evolution. It all depends on the enviroment. As the enviroment is constantly changing, what that can be considered good will also do so. Something that is favourable in one enviroment might very well be disfavourable in another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
While it probably wasn't literally ment, evolution could take us anywhere regarding the views on human rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I do not have to point to examples in history to say that that is not at all true. Religious people have been discriminating other humans since the dawn of mankind; just as much as non-religious. Gott mit uns!Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
That was a pretty blatant troll...Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Thankfully, flame is one of the things that reliably kills Trolls. [/D&D nerd]
Mymy, I agree with JAG.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
what is this that I hear coming from under the bridge?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
anyway....even being 'godless' secular I don´t think this kind of stuff is a good idea....who could you trust to do it responsibly?...answer...no one.
The reality is that eugenics is NOT repulsive to modern sensibilities. Look eugenics up and tell me that it isn't being practiced today and opposed by those who believe that all life is sacred.
The Nazi's were not a Christian party. Just because the history of Germany was predominantly Christian doesn't mean that eugenics is accepted by those with a Christian message. People are having rampant pre-marital sex, but you can't honestly say that their faith in God or the church has led them to it. The leading factor in those actions tends to be secular "ethics" - just as it was the leading factor in the Holocaust and the other abuses that we can remember regarding eugenics.
People already abort their children with downs syndrome and other disabilities on a massive scale - many are now calling for that to extend beyond the womb into any deficient children that "should have been" aborted or the elderly and disabled.
That's a wee bit different from the previous version which involved the forcible sterilisation of "unwanted" individuals - "medical violence" as it has been called - if not their outright physical extermination, as in the extreme case of the Nazis.
The modern version is one way to answer the dilemma of "if you *know* your child is going to be born handicapped and have a difficult life, is it crueler to abort the fetus or let it be ?"
Kind of a rock and a hard place issue that.
Are you asking if the handicapped are better off dead? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
:dizzy2:
Did you actually read the post before knee-jerking ?
If a baby is going to be born into terrible pain - the kindof pain we could only dream about in our worst nightmares - and then die after 48 hours of 'life'.
Is it morally more just to give birth to the baby and let it go through that, or to abort it.
That is what he is talking about, and you know it. That is not eugenics, that is sensible parenting and is a just question.
"Sensible Parenting starring JAG - this weeks guests, Warren Jeffs and Marybeth Tinning"Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
:painting: :whip:
Standing water doesn't even breed reptiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Often helps feed the leeches, though.
Although I agree that genetic diversity is a Good Thing I do not think that this goes against eugenics. There are many genetic mutations that are just bad, the most obvious is Down's, but there are of course many others. Downs are of course sterile but many others aren't.
In the UK we have reached a point where the failures have more opportunity to breed than those at the top. If you are successful you have one or 2 if any children as you pay for their upkeep. If you are unemployed then you start having children up to 15 or more years early and keep banging them out. Any type of control on this would be in breach of civil liberties and is of course not something we can address...
~:smoking:
As it happens, trying "any type of control on this" would also de facto be a regression to the interwar ideas of "social hygiene" which also, surprise surprise, were really worried about the class birthrate disparities...
Sounds like a straightforward question to me, so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
As this is one of the fairly unusual cases where I find myself in complete agreement with JAG, I feel it is worth celebration! :birthday2: He hits the important points. Evolution is not a eugenics issue, as evolution happens regardless of human intervention. Eugenics is an attempt to manipulate evolution to certain human expectations, which may be profoundly ignorant, misguided, or discriminatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Chances are, you'll find people have always been having 'rampant' pre-marital sex. Nothing shocking, there.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Ajax
What is flawed is your insistance that only those who believe in God can hold that all life is sacred. Belief in God is not a prerequisite for being a moral human being. That's just Christianity and Islam (mainly) trying to protect their oligopoly.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Go read the original post again. I'm not in the mood to explain the obvious to the deliberately misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
People with downs syndrom are not sterile. Males tend to be, but Females are fertile. There have been a few recent instances in which males were found that were not sterile.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Just to let you know, Mr. "Downies are bad"
Deliberate misunderstanding is what makes evaluation happen, so again, what exactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Go play with the strawman somewhere else, I'm not game.
The short answer: because we have evolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
eh?? Is a forum we discus things here, if you prefer a monologue....Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Could it be something much more primal which causes some to abhor the idea of genetically enhanced human beings? A primitive fear that to tamper with eons of evolution, a secular view, or with God's creation, the religous stance, could very well be encoded in our very DNA to begin with? An example of this can be seen in nature in the herd behaviour of some mammals in the wild. Horses, for instance will resist incestous behavior unless it is the last resort to ensure survival of the next generation.
Now if horses, posessing no PHDs in genetics, can intuite this from mere instinct, than surely man can come to similar conclusions. After all "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!"
Sorry honey, not tonight. I have a headache.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
And you seem awfully insistent on getting your knickers all wound up on a very obvious strawman interpretation of what was posted. *So* sorry I don't particularly feel like playing along.
I'll take what I can get and this must have taken some effort in making it funny yet suave in a I don't care kinda way. I feed on that so thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Errr... that's kind of because the inherent problems of consanguinity have over the millenia done a pretty fine job ensuring diverse beings' methods of reproduction avoid it when possible you know ?Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Not really unlike why parthenogenesis isn't a terribly common strategy...
I think the main arguement against Euogenics is "what gives you the right" sure, we can screw with our genome now but why should we. One of my flatmates was talking about how Scientists want to bring back the Mammoth, my question was, "why?"
Although I am actually ambivalent towards mass eugenics, I shall make the argument for why eugenics should be practiced.
According to natural selection, those with the better genes will be able to reproduce more often in the long run and thus, the species will improve as a whole due to a large portion having genes that favor reproduction. Now, we have essentially changed much of natural selection with our medicine and technology.
Genetic disorders or disorders that are partially caused due to genetics such as autism, Huntington's, mental retardation, and hypertensions would normally in the wild severely inhibit reproduction, but in many cases is able to be controlled by modern medicine. Those with such poor genetic traits are thus able to reproduce more often than they naturally should and their genes will propogate.
As a result of this increased reproduction, the human gene pool will naturally contain increased levels of wanted genetics. This also means that humans, if still dependent on medicine, will continually become more prone to various types of debilitating diseases. Granted, the pace that modern medicine is developed will mean that we won't have mass deaths due to these disorders, but also that the population will increase in its healthcare costs as well as its dependence on medicine.
In the long run, this means that the human species will become extremely fragile. Can you picture humans in which almost everyone has some form debilitating illness?
That essentially sums up the argument. Essentially, humans will at one point start using eugenics as part of implimenting natural selection. Without eugenics or sterialization as to prevent reproduction, the gene pool will grow increasingly worse.
Now, this is quite a cynical view, and is very immoral, I know. Furthermore, we will never be faced with this prospect and nor will our children, or our grandchildren, or even our descendents a millenium from now, but for humans in the very distant future (if we haven't started nuclear war and killed each other by then), eugenics will probably very much be a big consideration.
We or our ancestors have been around for millions of years... and that isn't long-term?Quote:
In the long run, this means that the human species will become extremely fragile. Can you picture humans in which almost everyone has some form debilitating illness?
Eugenics is not equal to natural selection. We already see the more successful people having better chances at attracting the opposite sex.
Even in the natural world, we don't see the fitter for survival animals actually kill off the weaker ones*.
(Of course, sometimes in the west we have the poorer folks having more children than the richer, which is really an error on the part of the well off for not having more children**)
CR
*Usually
**Some might say the issue is a bit more complex. Meh.
Well, it's not just about number of offspring. It's also about quality. You might say that the successful have fewer offspring, but provide them with more resources to attract a desirable mate, thus still giving them a better chance at improving the genetic and social situation of their offspring (edit: and thus putting those genes in a more secure position in the long term). Of course, you risk coming across as fairly elitist.
Ajax
edit 2: And for those who don't have the option of providing offspring with financial or social stability, going for numbers is a safer bet for helping their genes survive. It's still an evolutionary battle of discovering which genes are best suited to succeed in the environment. It's just a very different environment from that which hunter-gatherers live in.
Killing off groups of undesirable people isn't really natural selection.
Removing health care and seeing what survives seems closer to the idea.
Although it'd be kind of pointless as well...
Methinks the whole question is based on a rather shaky understanding of the way heredity actually works, you know. To put it in concrete terms, me and my brother inherited eye colors from different sides of the family.
That is condescending. You are implying that those who don't believe in God are more immoral. Note that I never stated that I was for eugenics in any way-- I am a humanist. It's a sociological question, similar to questioning the taboo on incest, marijuana, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Anyways, interesting points, all.
Quirinus, meet TuffStuff...Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
The only argument that can be put in favour of eugenics is an extremely crude utilitarian one, but it is in itself contradictory because accepting eugenics opens up a pandora's box of birth control and social engineering which it is in the collective interest of the humanity to keep securely locked. For instance, if someone with Down syndrome should be rendered impotent, why not force women over 45 to have abortions, seeing as that would greatly reduce the likelihood of Down syndrome in the first place? And in that case, why not force pregnant heroin addicts to have abortions? Etc, etc. We shouldn't debase ourselves by resorting to such methods in any case.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
1. Most species allow the weaker (young) members to die, that's how natural selection works.
2. Some of the more complex species however protect their own (young) even if they are apparently unfit.
3. The more complex species, bar solitary hunters, usually have a more complex social organization.
4. Man has physically and culturally evolved to a stage where he would be unfit for life as a caveman.
5. Stephen Hawking. Period.
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
Was about to say that, those who can't survive some illness without help, aren't fit for life, pretty simple, cheap and natural. :2thumbsup:
We could go further and abandon tools as well, if you're not strong enough to build a house with your own hands, you're not fit for life, if you're too stupid to grow your own vegetables, you're....well, the stone age sounds good, doesn't it? Wait, they used stones as tools and weapons, quite weak. :no:
Also I don't see how the "successful" would necessarily have the better genes? Einstein started with a pretty simple, one could say unsuccessful, job, should he have been denied the right to reproduce? And then allowed again later? When does a human have to be successful to be allowed to reproduce? And are all rich people really intelligent? Everybody loves nobility, right? Their inbreeding in the middle ages also clearly produced superior genes from superior genes and is a testament of their intelligence. :dizzy2:
I mean serially, come on!
Good and bad is relative. You cannot never know exactly what genes you are "getting rid off" when you sterilize someone. And as it is, all humans are defect in some areas and functioning in others, to exaggerate.Quote:
Originally Posted by TevashSzat
Erm, that is one of a gahzillion factors. Ultimately, it is the "adaption" to enviromental changes that matters. If the weaker member still should survive, it could be that it has better genes than the stronger ones for the changes in the enviroment; for instance if the appearance of volcanism should pollute the nearby river and kill off most of the members of this specie; but not the weaker member, since it happened to have a gene for resistance against the poisonous substance; he'll suddenly have a great favour and the genepool of this weak member will suddenly have a major impact on the future look of this specie, as ultimately, only the offspring with this particular gene will survive to breed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I'd hoped I'd addressed this above. The success of genes is not measured by the amount of money, power, or fame those possessing them achieve, but by their survival. Genes survive by being passed on to new generations of individuals (it's all about the genes, we're just the hosts). There are different ways genes can work to improve their chances of survival, and the means they may use vary according to the resources available to them. If their host organisms are poor and 'unsuccessful' by human standards, their best strategy is often saturation. The more copies of themselves they can produce, the more likely they are to have a winner make it to the next generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
If their hosts are wealthy and 'successful,' they have different tools available to them. They may have a better chance creating fewer copies, but providing the hosts of those copies with education, capital, and social connections to make them more desirable to a mate. For genes with 'successful' hosts, making too many copies could dilute those advantages.
Similarly, we develop societies and cooperate instead of randomly killing every competitor we see because such cooperation can improve the chances of survival on everyone's part. It's not always just a win-lose situation.
Of course it's not a conscious activity as I've portrayed it (or if it is, that'd be pretty creepy), but it's still an issue of natural selection taking place right in front of us. The most successful genes could be residing in a poor or a rich person. We don't know which genes are 'better' or 'worse' than others, and only leaving them to do their thing can show us. Based on the continued existence of genes in both rich and poor hosts, it seems that wealth and power is not a very effective measure of the potential or value of genes. Eugenics assumes we can determine which genes are 'best,' and then we could 'improve' society by weeding out the crappy ones. In reality it's a tool used by the powerful groups in society (or perhaps by their genes) to try to trump the mass production tool of the powerless. It's an attempt not to catalyze natural selection, but to thwart it and give certain genes an artificial advantage they do not inherently possess.
Ajax
edit: the best predictive measure of how successful a person's genes are is probably asking ourselves the question of how much would we like to mate with them. This is necessarily incomplete as our tastes may differ widely from other people, and other factors may stand in the way, but at least generally, the best place on this forum to find genes likely to succeed would be the babe thread, or for some of us the hunk thread I suppose.
No. It's the very essence of natural selection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
The fit live, the unfit die.
There may be a gazillion reasons why, but they do not affect the operative principle.
Well the theory of natural selection doesn't admit of judgments of "fitness" or "unfitness" unless they are made in hindsight by reference to how many offspring an organism has or how prolific a species is. By contrast, eugenics is artificial selection by reference to subjective judgment.
You suggested that natural selection is more or less parents choosing not to let their weakest children grow up (does it even necessarily strengthen the specie at all?). Tis not. Enviromental changes is much more of a driving factor. A specimen not fit for its enviroment, dies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Agreed. The 'fit' in 'survival of the fittest' isn't so much in the sense of 'fit as an athlete', as 'fit as a glove', as Viking pointed out in his example of volcanism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
I suspect it's rather the fear of ending up on the "unfit" side. A larger population doesn't really need to inbreed to enhance a certain trait.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
This issue will probably show up in some way when it come to genetical engineering though.
No. I said most species allow their members to die, mostly at a young age, when they are physically unfit. Darwin already observed that the most fit individuals in a population are the ones least likely to die of starvation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Man goes to extreme lengths to keep them alive, even in old age, and considers starvation, even if self-induced, as scandalous.
In ethological terms most higher organisms are cooperative; few are altruistic. Man is somewhere at the top of the altruism scale and at the same time at the top of the vengeance-scale (i.e. incidence of revengeful behaviour).
Man has taken cooperative, altruistic or reciprocal behaviour to a higher level. Food sharing for instance, which is common among monkeys, has evolved into fiscal taxation...
All of that is true, but I'll not let you get away with that you said something different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Man has a not so usual habit to take care of the weak also, ok, but that is not the main difference between natural selection and eugenics, no.
I disagree. It may be a small distinction, but I'd say, the fit reproduce consistently, the unfit fail to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Ajax
Plus all populaces produce their quota of what are inasmuch as the "selfish gene" is concerned failures, say sterile individuals, if only by random mutation and "copying error".
Whereas the "fit" die just the same when they fall off a cliff by accident.
:shrug:
Way of the world. I really don't see any need to start messing around with it, other than noting that once the techniques of genetic engineering reach the requisite level of refinement people with the necessary resources for it will start tailoring their damn kids' genetic sequence already at the germline stage, which is probably really rather rude when you think about it.
But then again, that's also the point where cultural evolution pretty much overtakes biological evolution for good and next we'll be "uplifting" octopi.
They question that secular or scientific types need to ask is not "why?" but "why not?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
It really isn't good enough to say "I really don't see a need to start messing around with it". Science needs to perpetually go forward - you can't stop concepts, unless you have a legitimate impediment, other that "i don't see why it is important". Maybe somebody else does. Ask "why shouldn't we start messing around with it?"
Well said. But we are no longer addressing the OP's question here. That question was: why do humans generally abhor eugenics?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I think retroactive eugenics (killing 'unworthy' life) runs against man's behavioural repertoire which is in many ways cooperative, altruistic, affective, even empathic (not unlike that of other primates).
Affective behaviour is prominent in all primates, as shown by their (our) ability to recognize and judge expressions, postures and sounds of other animals, to understand what state they are in and, when they spot an invalid, wounded or starving member of the species, to realise that 'there, but for the grace of God, go I'.
As to proactive eugenics (genetic manipulation) I think we generally abhor it because we associate it with monstrous outcomes, particularly outcomes that seem to erase the boundaries between our species and others which also appears to be a very old part of our behavioural repertoire. No doubt is has an evolutionary benefit, though I don't know Jack Squat about it.
To add to what Adrian has put so well, this seems to tie in with some of man's early creation narratives, such as the Sumerians and the Isrealites left us. There are certain passages which deal with the "gods" or the "sons of God" experimenting with genetic tampering-either through direct sexual contact, as is the case in Genesis, or through experimentation with the inter species breeding (probably through genetic experimentation) mentioned in the Sumerian epics. In both cases a price was to be paid for such "immoral" actions. In the Biblical account it led leads to the flood, whereas in the Sumerian story it results in rebellion and civil war between the gods. Perhaps, as I mentioned this is an instinctive fear woven into our very genetic code, and is passed down as a collective memory of what turned out to be a very negative outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
While this isn't quite the same as modern day scientists are seeking, still the question remains. If the very gods were chastised and punished for genetic tampering, what makes us think that we can escape such a judgment? Were not Adam and Eve punished for gaining knowledge of the "Tree of Life"-a description apt to the DNA tree? I realize I'm stretching it a bit here, but I'm hoping to provide one possible answer to the topic we are discussing.
Anyone care to expound on this idea?
...and Teh Wiki on the same. I really don't think it requires explaining why the old-school eugenical and racial-hygienic ideas, which involved interfering with peoples' choice of mates and in more radical forms forced sterilisation of rather arbitrarily determined "unfit" individuals (and in extreme forms such as practised by Nazis, their outright killing), are repugnant to the modern value-set.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
It's basically biological ideas applied in an interventionist fashion to society on the basis of some rather dodgy vulgar-evolutionary reasoning.
Inasmuch as they can be even defined under the same heading, the modern forms merely inform the parents of any problems detected with the developing fetus and give them the choice to either carry the pregnancy to term regardless, or, where it is a legal option, terminate it, as their conscience dictates.
Also...
...and Wiki.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
See the difference ?
Interesting. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
I am sure that the oldest written sources of man contain 'knowledge' (not in the modern systematic sense, but in the form of myths, of symbols and of do's and dont's) that reflects recent stages of our biological evolution.
I would like to look into this, if only I had the time.
Is there any literature on this particular subject? I know there is research being done into the evolutionary roots of religion, but I have never heard of ancient religious sources being studied for evolutionary clues.