Eugenics..

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Challenger78, Jul 9, 2009.

  1. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    Remind this poor sod again, why do we think this is wrong?,
    Parents often impost their own racial, personal preferences on their offsprings mate, e.g, Jewish parents will want a jewish son to marry a jewish woman, as the lineage is considered to be passed down through the women, conservative, white parents will want their children to marry other, holy god fearing conservative children..

    So if we impose it psychologically, and in some cases as whole communities, although polygamy is the opposite of selective breeding..

    What's stopping us from imposing it as a society, through a IQ/Intelligence basis ?

    Look, I'm not in support, but I'd like to have all the info before coming to an opinion.
    Also, having watched Idiocracy again.. I feel compelled to ask that question.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Because natural selection does not work by eugenics.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    Is natural selection, survival of the fittest ?, Or survival of the most populous. I understand that the most populous species may have a serious disadvantage to a new factor/stimuli, but arguably, intelligence, or the ability to adapt, would be the best trait to have ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Is that really true, historically speaking?
     
  8. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    Even if we ignore the ethical side of the issue, eugenics still harmfull and dangerous path to follow for practical reasons. When we select animals or plants for breeding, we aim a handfull of targets, such as meat quality, abundance, etc. However humans have potential to respond millions of functions. Selective breeding among humans will create a concentration on certain aspects while eradicating others. Diversity has more opportunities than what eugenics can provide for human kinds.
     
  9. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    Hypothetical situation:

    You are a one half of a couple who is unable to conceive a child, so you decide to get a sperm donor. There are two donors available:

    Donor A has Down's Syndrome, schizophrenia, Cerebral Palsy, Tay Sachs Disease and Sickle Cell Anemia.

    Donor B is brilliant, stunningly handsome, has no genetic disorders or family history of genetic disorders, etc.

    Which donor would you pick? If you picked Donor B, you just practiced eugenics.
     
  10. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    And some of that "diversity" includes things like horrible genetic diseases. It seems pretty selfish to suggest that people should have to continue to suffer from things like cancer, sickle-cell anemia, progeria, etc. in the same of some vague notion of more genetic diversity being better.
     
  11. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    A species that practices eugenics will still be subject to natural selection. Either the eugenics will make them more likely to survive and reproduce, or it won't. Either way, natural selection will still be in play.
     
  12. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    Correct. Eugenics play a part in almost everything we do, in relation to others. When we search for mates, whether male or female, it is my belief that we are subconciously attractive to certain individiuals (good looking, disease free, clean etc) because not only are they healthy to us, but they offer good opportunity to produce healthy offspring. Some goes with those who we associate with even as friends.
     
  13. Dub_ Strange loop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    Obvious ethical issues aside, there's not really very good evidence that much variation in human intelligence (this being the trait assumed to be desired) is down to purely genetic differences (with obvious exceptions such as certain genetic diseases). Even twin studies and the like that purport to measure the heritability of intelligence are commonly misinterpreted, or rather overinterpreted -- you can't feasibly hold all variables other than genetics even close to constant as would be necessary to draw good causal inferences, so it's prudent to draw conservative conclusions from these studies.

    It's also instructive to consider the Flynn effect, which is the observed phenomenon of IQ scores gradually raising over the past century at the rate of something like 8 points per decade. (IQ tests are constantly re-normed to bring the average back down to 100.) Since this is far faster than evolution/natural selection could work to increase intelligence, it indicates cultural/environmental influences. And since cultural/environmental influences have been shown to account for huge differences in intelligence test scores, there's no good reason to infer that observed group differences in IQ scores -- which are invariably smaller than the temporal differences observed with the Flynn effect -- are indicative of underlying genetic differences.

    The overall point here being that even if eugenics is logically sound in principle (and that's a big if), reliably selecting the groups/individuals/traits to be fostered is impossible in practice. And this is not to mention the ethical issues... but hey, that's the boring part anyway to us science folk, right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyway, sorry if this is hard to follow; my head is currently swimming from the painkillers I received after my oral surgery

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I can try to expand later if you'd like.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Eugenics works for selection of one or two genetically established Mendelian traits, desired at the expense of everything else for some reason.

    "Intelligence" is not such a trait. Overall mental and physical "superiority" also fails to be so linked (is taller better? no matter how achieved?) Too many genes involved, too many complications of recessive and dominant and hybrid vigor to handle.

    The way that genetically superior crops and animals are currently produced is as hybrids - two inferior stocks are maintained and crossbred to produce the superior individuals, which do not breed true. I doubt that's what most eugenics backers have in mind.

    The way that desirable recessives are established is by repeatedly back-crossing from hybrids, a multigenerational approach that usually must be repeated for each unit of genetic information desired. Again, not the commonly presented approach.

    One way that desirable dominants are established in their "pure" form, without too many generations, is by culling all the offspring of the grandparents of any individual exhibiting the recessive trait - not too popular outside of commercial breeding operations.

    Eugenics advocates usually haven't paid enough attention to what makes breeding programs work.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2009
  15. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    I will just give you some names: Newton, Beethoven, Stephen Hawking, Van Gogh... Your "Hypothetical situation" can not be applicable to Human race otherwise we would not have these great names, yet we have. Who knows how many of possible great humans we are currently sacrificing all corners of the world. We do not know actually and accurately what our species are capable of collectively, and we still do not know how our minds work. If you aim to design a universal soldier type creatures, yes, human DNA technology can do that. However, we still do not have the luxury of applying any kind of restriction or selective breeding to our species: We simply do not know which individuals may have what roles in human destiny. It is my human duty to be crazy; because even this healtiest and happiest guys are getting old and dying at the end. I have to be so crazy that I must find a way to cure all diseases or transfer my existence to the matrix or being a software or being a cyborg.

    What you hypothesize also ignores the fact that many great scientific achievements in modern medicine was greatly motivated by these various human dramas. We have a huge bag of genetic oriented mental disorders which are simply do not exist among any other known animal species. They are the cost of our distinct evolution. Your "donor" word reminded me the complexity of our beings: Certain blood types are more resistant to certain diseases while others are resistant to some other pandemics. "A backup for a possible extinction" if you like. Each battle with mental and physical challenges have created a great library of human gene pool and eventually database. Millions of different problems require millions of different applications and solutions.

    I am afraid you can not hypothesize humans without completely isolating them from the realm of physical and mental dependencies and restrictions. You can beat the mutation via genetic copy method, but you can not beat the environmental conditions yet. Universe, galaxy, forces and everything else is coming to your knowledge day by day, you need to enrich your existence possibilities. You can not gamble between A and B. You will need C and D, humour, music, devotion, interest, and so on... In our knowledge, we currently stage the biggest show in the entire universe. We need diverse players to make the show richer and longer.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2009
  16. Saven Registered Member

    Messages:
    209
    Intelligence isn't genetic.
     
  17. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    I guess that's why you meet so many intelligent bison.
     
  18. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Eugenics isn't wrong. It's simply a mechanism whereby social forces are able to better mold society to a specific liking.
     
  19. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    Don't we do that already with practically everything ?
     
  20. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    That's "fittest" as in best suited to the current circumstance of their existence, not fittest as in healthy or strong, though those are usually helpful in most circumstances. People for example suck at about everything, no natural weapons, slow, defenseless, weak, poor senses; except adaptability. We'll eat about anything, have sex with about any one, live about anywhere, and turn about anything into a weapon.
     
  21. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    I wonder ....if we, the human race, were to begin a systematic program of eugenics and euthanasia, how many people would be left on the Earth?

    Would we get rid of enough "abnormal, imperfect" people to keep from being so over-populated in so many areas of the world?

    I still think, instead of a specific program, we should just have "hunting/killing seasons" a few times a year ...where you can legally kill anyone that you want without recriminations. That would get rid of people, plus would help cull the herd.

    Baron Max
     
  22. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    And how do we know we wouldn't have even more "great names" if we practiced eugenics?
     
  23. PharaohsVizier Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    Interesting theory... but human kind have created so many ways to kill that it's not exactly easy to weed out the imperfect just by having an open fire season. To weed out the weak, you need to have them do something physically demanding. A guy in a wheelchair could carry around a gun and kill plenty of healthy, fit people that should be classified the "fittest".
     

Share This Page