Why is eugenics repulsive to modern sensibilities?

[Quirinus]

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?

[Husar]

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...

[Raz]

Sounds like Husar is building up on his plan...

[CountArach]

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?

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.

Also, who would determine who can no longer breed? How would we know that their view was correct?

[Watchman]

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.

[rotorgun]

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?

[ICantSpellDawg]

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?

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.

[JAG]

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.

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.

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

Mymy, I agree with JAG.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[Goofball]

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.

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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.

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.

As this is one of the fairly unusual cases where I find myself in complete agreement with JAG, I feel it is worth celebration! 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.

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.

Chances are, you'll find people have always been having 'rampant' pre-marital sex. Nothing shocking, there.

Ajax

[Viking]

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?

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.

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...

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.

While it probably wasn't literally ment, evolution could take us anywhere regarding the views on human rights.

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.

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!

[Goofball]

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.

That was a pretty blatant troll...

[Watchman]

Thankfully, flame is one of the things that reliably kills Trolls. [/D&D nerd]

[Ronin]

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.

what is this that I hear coming from under the bridge?

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.

[Quirinus]

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.

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.


Anyways, interesting points, all.

[CountArach]

That is condescending. You are implying that those who don't believe in God are more immoral.

Quirinus, meet TuffStuff...

[Furious Mental]

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.

[Geoffrey S]

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.

[Adrian II]

So why is there such stigma when the same principle is applied to human beings -- i.e. eugenics?

The short answer: because we have evolved.

[Craterus]

Killing off groups of undesirable people isn't really natural selection.

Removing health care and seeing what survives seems closer to the idea.

[Watchman]

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.

[Husar]

Removing health care and seeing what survives seems closer to the idea.

Was about to say that, those who can't survive some illness without help, aren't fit for life, pretty simple, cheap and natural.
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.

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.

I mean serially, come on!

[ajaxfetish]

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.

I mean serially, come on!

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.

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.