Eugenics

[Don't Panic]

Holy shit, I'm becoming a eugenics proponent. The more I think about it, the more it seems plausible. Fuck.

Why not start a eugenics thread in the general/philosophy section?

I'll do it tomorrow. I'm dead tired now, I need to collect my thoughts, formulate a (somewhat) thorough opinion, and then I'll start the thread.

Or, someone else is welcome to do so on my behalf.

I'm afraid that you are the eugenicist, Dr Mengele, it is your thread to start!

Ok, first off, it's NOT a nazi parallel. I'll get around to formulating my ideas correctly.

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?

[JimC]

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.

[Don't Panic]

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.

[JimC]

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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?

Oh, sure, the Godless atheist wants to play god?

http://itsbashy.files.wordpress.com/200 ... -thumb.jpg[/imgc]

[Tigger]

OH NO EVERYONE IS DERAILING THE NEWS OF THE DAY NUMBER 5. OH NOOOZZZOZOZOZOZOZOZOZOZ

My mother pushed me over today while I was carrying 19kg of books.

[Trolldor]

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.

Who has the right to say "You don't get to have your own family"? No whole society will ever agree on a single issue, you always refer to the majority, meaning the minority is ignored or disregarded. Eugenics won't work on a voluntary system, and it can never be implemented involuntarily unless you want my boot up your ass.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The biggest argument against eugenics (assuming we disregard the 'against the will of gawd' bollocks) is that we simply cannot predict (yet) the long term outcome of selecting for particular characteristics. Do we actually know all of the pros and cons of any single gene?

For example, we could selectively breed out sickle-cell anaemia from the population but the fact is that people that are heterozygous for the SS gene (ie. they have one SS gene and one normal gene) have a far greater resistance to malaria than those without the gene. This is what has led to the predominance of the disease in areas affected by malaria.

We simply do not know ALL of the effects of any gene. There may be subtle advantages linked to the heterozygous state of other genes that cause debilitating, even fatal conditions in their homozygous form - and more to the point, these advantages might be linked to things that we currently never face! What if carriers of a particular genetic ailment are actually better defended against bubonic plague and a new strain of plague arose that was airborne and multi-resistant?

Until the full phenotypic effects of a gene is known, the consequences of selecting for, or against, that gene are also unknown. So, for now at least, eugenics is a bad idea - in my onion.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We're already practicing a form of eugenics when parents decide against bringing a pregnancy to term because of a problem with the fetus.

[Feck]

We're already practicing a form of eugenics when parents decide against bringing a pregnancy to term because of a problem with the fetus.

like its a girl , in some countries :pissed:

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We're already practicing a form of eugenics when parents decide against bringing a pregnancy to term because of a problem with the fetus.

like its a girl , in some countries :pissed:

Like India?

Healthy boy or girl?

Gender selection leads to women being treated as "too valuable to be walking around." (But still not treated like human beings. :pissed: )

[FBM]

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.

[Kristie]

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.

[FBM]

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.

[ScholasticSpastic]

<snip>but the fact is that people that are heterozygous for the SS gene (ie. they have one SS gene and one normal gene) have a far greater resistance to malaria than those without the gene.</snip>

Get your SS genes here, people. I'm giving them away.