Why is eugenics repulsive to modern sensibilities?

[ICantSpellDawg]

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...

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.

Just to let you know, Mr. "Downies are bad"

[Fragony]

Go read the original post again. I'm not in the mood to explain the obvious to the deliberately misunderstanding.

Deliberate misunderstanding is what makes evaluation happen, so again, what exactly

[Watchman]

Go play with the strawman somewhere else, I'm not game.

[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.

[Fragony]

Go play with the strawman somewhere else, I'm not game.

eh?? Is a forum we discus things here, if you prefer a monologue....

[rotorgun]

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!"

[Watchman]

eh?? Is a forum we discus things here, if you prefer a monologue....

Sorry honey, not tonight. I have a headache.

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.

[Fragony]

Sorry honey, not tonight. I have a headache.

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.

[Watchman]

Horses, for instance will resist incestous behavior unless it is the last resort to ensure survival of the next generation.

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 ?

Not really unlike why parthenogenesis isn't a terribly common strategy...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?"

[TevashSzat]

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.

[CountArach]

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?

We or our ancestors have been around for millions of years... and that isn't long-term?

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Adrian II]

Eugenics is not equal to natural selection.

Exactly.

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.

[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!

[Viking]

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.

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.

1. Most species allow the weaker (young) members to die, that's how natural selection works.

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.

[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.

[Adrian II]

Erm, that is one of a gahzillion factors.

No. It's the very essence of natural selection.

The fit live, the unfit die.

There may be a gazillion reasons why, but they do not affect the operative principle.

[Furious Mental]

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.

[Viking]

No. It's the very essence of natural selection.

The fit live, the unfit die.

There may be a gazillion reasons why, but they do not affect the operative principle.

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.

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.

Exactly.

[Quirinus]

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.

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.

[Ironside]

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!"

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.

This issue will probably show up in some way when it come to genetical engineering though.

[Adrian II]

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?).

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.

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...

[Viking]

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.

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.

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.