Eugenics

[Trolldor]

I have an autoimmune disease that could be passed on to my offspring, so I decided not to have kids. Simple. Now if only others with such problems could be arsed to feel a modicum of responsibility towards their species.

I'm blonde, and I passed it on to both of my kids.

Ya see?! Ya see what happens?!

In all seriousness, though, has our species actually circumvented evolution? We don't need to chase prey or even be particularly charming or intelligent in order to reproduce. If you look at the largest families, on the whole they tend to be poorer and less educated. But does that really mean that evolution isn't still at work? Or has evolution simply taken on a different aspect? Has evolution evolved? It could be that memes have taken over natural selection. That is, maybe evolution now selects for the fittest meme, not the fittest DNA.

No. Memetics uses evolution as a parallel in explaining how it operates. Evolution is dependant on the genes - reproducing more successfully is part of evolution.

[FBM]

No. Memetics uses evolution as a parallel in explaining how it operates. Evolution is dependant on the genes - reproducing more successfully is part of evolution.

Yes, I know, but what I'm getting at is that natural selection through survival of the fittest genes, genes that select for the traits that result in more successful reproduction, don't seem to apply to modern humans. Humans with genetic defects that would have prevented survival even a few hundred years ago, and thus prevent reproduction, routinely survive and reproduce. Thus, instead of such maladaptive genetic material being selected out of the gene pool, it's being protected. This could at least in part be attributed to the success of some memes, such as the rights of the disabled, the political incorrectness of eugenics, political, cultural and religious attitudes towards contraception, etc. So in a sense, I'm wondering if evolution hasn't been hijacked by memes.

[Chinaski]

Ok, here's my thoughts on the issue:
If by eugenics one means the selective breeding of human beings to increase the strength, both intellectual and physical, of the human race, then I don't really know where I stand. However, what I've been arguing for on another forum for some time is the selective allowance of people who may become parents. Seems to me that raising a child is a huge responsibility, towards the child and society, and it should not be entrusted to anyone indiscriminately. An analogy is that of having a dog: before you can buy and keep a dog, you must obtain a license. To do this, you must prove that you are capable of providing a positive environment for said dog. I'm positive that a similar method, employed for the benefits of society, would have a constructive impact. If you're incapable of having a child, you shouldn't be allowed to; just as if you're incapable of driving, you shouldn't be allowed to drive.

[FBM]

Ok, here's my thoughts on the issue:
If by eugenics one means the selective breeding of human beings to increase the strength, both intellectual and physical, of the human race, then I don't really know where I stand. However, what I've been arguing for on another forum for some time is the selective allowance of people who may become parents. Seems to me that raising a child is a huge responsibility, towards the child and society, and it should not be entrusted to anyone indiscriminately. An analogy is that of having a dog: before you can buy and keep a dog, you must obtain a license. To do this, you must prove that you are capable of providing a positive environment for said dog. I'm positive that a similar method, employed for the benefits of society, would have a constructive impact. If you're incapable of having a child, you shouldn't be allowed to; just as if you're incapable of driving, you shouldn't be allowed to drive.

That's an attractive idea and loaded with common sense, but again, it'll be shouted down by the "basic human rights" meme-sters.

[Trolldor]

I'm suprised your brain didn't throw up considering you missed such an obvious flaw in your argument.
Who gets to decide? On what criteria? There must bea body who employs SUBJECTIVE reasoning in order to establish a criteria.

Which ideology, or faith is suitable and which are not? What economic class? What social structure? Which nationality is suitable? Every one of those factors have to be taken in to account in not just the genetic conception but the life of the child as well. Individuals who's genetic ancestors hailed from certain regions will have genes which excel in one area but leave them exposed in another, and behave in such a way as the two can never be reconciled.
Intelligence? How far are you willing to go? Should we disallow autistic parents because autism has negative affects on someone's ability to interact socially? Is it unsuitable for someone's focus to be on creativity rather than logic? How do we raise a child in an environment which ensures that inspite of their individual personality they are able to excel in any and all areas? Do we exclude those of average intelligence and refuse to allow individuals in to positions of influence if it can not be demonstrated they have a greater intelligence? Do we thus deny individuals who may be under par in all but one area but excel beyond belief in that area?
Most importantly, who sets the arbitrary definitions? Who defines 'intelligence'? Who determines what and where the "levels" of intelligence are? If the average is raised, do these levels raise along with them? If so, then why do what was previously labelled "acceptable" suddenly become unacceptable?
You can not pre-emptively evaluate someone's level of performance or ability.

[Chinaski]

I'm not talking about any absolutes, like ethnic background or whatnot, I'm talking about various degrees of ability within one person's life. A person with an alcoholic problem, for example, would not be given a "license". A fundamentalist wacko, neither. If they lost the drinking problem or the fundamentalism, they could get the license. No one's excluded a priori.

[Trolldor]

Arbitrary ideals, once again. You're using your values and what you deem 'acceptable' and forcing them on to a greater population in an absolute fashion.

[Chinaski]

Arbitrary ideals, once again. You're using your values and what you deem 'acceptable' and forcing them on to a greater population in an absolute fashion.

But there's an objective level of moral values and "ideals", for sure. Some people just shouldn't be entrusted with raising children, one of the gravest responsibilities in existence. The State imposes it's minimum standards on requirements for a driver's license, dog ownership, gun license, etc. Why should it be any different when it comes to children? In fact, it should be even more restricted, seeing as it's a greater responsibility!

[Trolldor]

Arbitrary ideals, once again. You're using your values and what you deem 'acceptable' and forcing them on to a greater population in an absolute fashion.

But there's an objective level of moral values and "ideals", for sure. Some people just shouldn't be entrusted with raising children, one of the gravest responsibilities in existence. The State imposes it's minimum standards on requirements for a driver's license, dog ownership, gun license, etc. Why should it be any different when it comes to children? In fact, it should be even more restricted, seeing as it's a greater responsibility!

No such thing as objective moral values and ideals without an objective arbiter of those values and ideals. As I said, who determines these ideals? Which body? Which set of ideals or values do you refer to?

[Animavore]

I was about to say what BBA just said.

If you look at animals that we breed different people breed different traits. Some breed for speed, some for strength, some for looks and some for fluffiness.
So how then do we decide to breed humans? Do we breed for athleticism (I'm sure some militantly inclined people would want this)? For genius (a lot of scientists intolerant of stupidity and incompetence may want this)? Beauty (Hollywood may want this, although you got to remember beauty is in the eye of the beholder)? Artistic flair?
You're going to end up with different people wanting to breed different traits. Its never going to work.
Also this thing about who gets to breed and who doesn't, some Republicans might use this to underhandedly put checks and stops on blacks and Latinos. Also, how you going to stop them breeding? Castration? Its never going to work and is a terrible idea from the out set.

[FBM]

QED

[Animavore]

QED

It has already been demonstrated. Look what happened to Crufts.

[klr]

DP wrote:

Eugenics was considered a socially acceptable topic up until WWII, I look forward to reading your views on the subject, I fail to see why such a strong stigma has been attached to something which could improve the species. We do it with animals, why not with ourselves?

If a society voluntarily and without coercion embarked on some degree of control over breeding choices, it may well have some potential gains in at least eliminating certain inherited diseases. However, the reality is that eugenics programs assume and demand a degree of social coercion and repression that is totally unacceptable to individual liberty.

Education on the subject would remove the need for coercion, if people were taught about eugenics and it's potential benefits in school we would probably begin to see an entirely voluntary shift in that direction within a few generations.

Small scale examples do exist. A group of Jews in America suffer drom a high proportion of a certain inherited disease (forgotten the name), and they voluntarily got a system of pre-marriage testing for carriers going, which I believe has been successful.

Most likely Tay-Sachs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay-Sachs_disease

Now, expand that to (say) Cystic Fibrosis, assuming the availability of a simple and effective screening tool for potential parents, just as exists for Tay-Sachs - I don't think such a thing exists at this point BTW. Cystic Fibrosis persists partly* because it's recessive, and if both parents are carriers, then there's a one-in-four chance that any offspring of theirs would have full-blown Cystic Fibrosis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis

*And partly because it offers some protection against things like Cholera and Typhoid, meaning that carriers have an advantage in some environments.

So, what would you do? Would what is being done to reduce the incidence of one disorder/disease in a relatively small population be acceptable in a much larger one, which is the question JimC originally posed?

Fascinating thread BTW. I could spend all day responding to the various points put forward so far, but there's this little problem called work ...

[JimC]

klr wrote:

Would what is being done to reduce the incidence of one disorder/disease in a relatively small population be acceptable in a much larger one, which is the question JimC originally posed?

Thanks, Kevin, I'm pretty sure you were right about my example being the Tay-Sachs disease in the jewish sub-population. My point is that rational but voluntary small-scale eugenics programs have a reasonable chance of working and reduducing clear-cut misery. Broader and more ambitious programs will most likely run into trouble, as clearly articulated by BAA.

[klr]

klr wrote:

Would what is being done to reduce the incidence of one disorder/disease in a relatively small population be acceptable in a much larger one, which is the question JimC originally posed?

Thanks, Kevin, I'm pretty sure you were right about my example being the Tay-Sachs disease in the jewish sub-population. My point is that rational but voluntary small-scale eugenics programs have a reasonable chance of working and reduducing clear-cut misery. Broader and more ambitious programs will most likely run into trouble, as clearly articulated by BAA.

And yet reducing/eliminating CF or something similar could hardly be construed as anything but good for all concerned. We castigate and vilify parents for neglecting their children; If they put their children in harm's way, they can be brought up before the courts, or be deprived custody. If CF were caused by some by some other type of action/neglect, you can be sure there would much more public support for any moves to at least reduce the incidence: Do (or do not do) this, or else any child that you conceive will have a one in four chance of having a wretched and incurable disease ... It should be a no-brainer, especially with a Zeitgeist that values the child so much.