Eugenics
 

What are the problems with eugenics (other than possible moral problems)? Don't genes matter enough? Sounds like a reasonable idea to me, that we would try to increase the amount of positive traits (empathy, intelligence, happiness, beauty...) by only making new people from sperm and egg cells of people with those traits. Or perhaps letting everybody have one own child first, because it's such an important thing for us to get an own child.

Eugenics could solve the problem that stupid people reproduce more, while also hopefully increasing people's happiness (by fitting better to modern environment like cities) and making people care more about each other, animals and future generations.

I know there's the stigma because of nazis and "unnaturality", but I think we should try to get over that if it means we can solve other huge problems.

Re: Eugenics
 

Below is an interesting article on the future of genetics. I'm shocked the nytimes published this. The times, they are ah changing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are the problems with eugenics (other than possible moral problems)?

[/ QUOTE ]
There's no problem with it other than "possible moral problems", but those possible moral problems are significant.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't genes matter enough? Sounds like a reasonable idea to me, that we would try to increase the amount of positive traits (empathy, intelligence, happiness, beauty...) by only making new people from sperm and egg cells of people with those traits.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't see a problem with having a committee of judges that decides based on their standards who should be allowed to reproduce? And how would they enforce it? Forced sterilization? Forced abortion? Forced sterilization was actually a policy (or at least a legal option often carried out) of many western countries in the early 1900s and I for one would not like to see it return.

[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps letting everybody have one own child first, because it's such an important thing for us to get an own child.

[/ QUOTE ]
Despite that it still sounds unpleasant.

[ QUOTE ]
I know there's the stigma because of nazis and "unnaturality", but I think we should try to get over that if it means we can solve other huge problems.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see a stigma against forced sterilization as a bad thing. You don't even have to make a slippery slope argument. But while the nazi incident shouldn't necsarrily be a reason (and I tend not to agree with slippery slope arguments) against supporting any sort of eugenics, it is still important to remember history and how eugenic attitudes led to forced euthenasia of many people and eventually leading to the holocaust. That is we have to be careful not to repeat past mistakes.

Re: Eugenics
 

The moral implications are enormous, but for some reason you wish to put those aside. OK...how about the fact that narrowing the gene pool significantly could actually lead to unexpected genetic defects. A diverse gene pool is overall healthy for a population to have; if the gene pool becomes too narrow than unlikely genetic anomalies might pop up more often.

Re: Eugenics
 

I don't know how big the gene pool would need to be, but with 6 billion people on this planet, I think it probably wouldn't be a big problem.

Re: Eugenics
 

foal,
how about just criminalizing making a second own child? I don't see need for forced sterilization. Forced abortion, maybe, depending on how early it is (I don't have an opinion on abortion really).

I know it sounds unpleasant, but I see a LOT of potential in it.

Re: Eugenics
 

Well, if we are ignoring moral problems, the biggest practical hurdle is essentially the mouse/snake/mongoose/gorilla problem.

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how big the gene pool would need to be, but with 6 billion people on this planet, I think it probably wouldn't be a big problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

But remember that you are eliminating the genes of "stupid people." You might also end up getting rid of a lot of traits, effectively limiting the gene pool much more.

If you are considering this, watch the movie Gattaca, and tell me if you still think it's a good idea.

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how big the gene pool would need to be, but with 6 billion people on this planet, I think it probably wouldn't be a big problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

But remember that you are eliminating the genes of "stupid people." You might also end up getting rid of a lot of traits, effectively limiting the gene pool much more.

If you are considering this, watch the movie Gattaca, and tell me if you still think it's a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, then watch U-571 and maybe Event Horizon.

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
the mouse/snake/mongoose/gorilla problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is this problem?

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the mouse/snake/mongoose/gorilla problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's from the Simpsons. The solutions to the problem (introducing predators) turn out to produce new problems.

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
...the mouse/snake/mongoose/gorilla problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, that old chestnut.

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are the problems with eugenics (other than possible moral problems)? Don't genes matter enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

you cannot just cast the moral issues aside, particularly when they are at the crux of the argument against eugenics .

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the mouse/snake/mongoose/gorilla problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's from the Simpsons. The solutions to the problem (introducing predators) turn out to produce new problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

but the beautiful part is, when wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are the problems with eugenics

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on exactly what mean by eugenics.

[ QUOTE ]
other than possible moral problems

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not seem reasonably to ignore the moral problems.

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a reasonable idea to me, that we would try to increase the amount of positive traits (empathy, intelligence, happiness, beauty...) by only making new people from sperm and egg cells of people with those traits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like a disastrous idea. The form of policing that would be need to implement these rules would far out do any imagined befits. I expect there would also be practical problems with implementation due to popular resistance.

[ QUOTE ]
Eugenics could solve the problem that stupid people reproduce more

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that a problem?

[ QUOTE ]
while also hopefully increasing people's happiness (by fitting better to modern environment like cities) and making people care more about each other, animals and future generations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes! I’m 180º on this one.

[ QUOTE ]
I know there's the stigma because of nazis and "unnaturality", but I think we should try to get over that if it means we can solve other huge problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t see the other huge problems.

Re: Eugenics
 

The biggest problem is that it is

1.) Extremely oppressive.

But ok, you said we should disregard that. The remaining problems are:

2.) It is illogical. It is based on assumptions that are at best misguided.
3.) It is impractical. Because enforcing it means totalitarity, which has a tendency to both fail spectacularly and be very expensive.
4.) It has severe implications. Eugenics in the past has led to some fairly bad political practices and some pretty stupid beliefs.
5.) It is biased. Eugenics is usually not a result of some sound scientific insight but more a confirmation of some naive prejudice.
6.) It doesn't solve the problem it pretends to solve. You still end up with someone deciding who gets to reproduce based on partially subjective criteria.
7.) It makes hazy assumptions. Eugenics assumes that the answer to a rather complex problem lies in only one place.
8.) It isn't realistic. Eugenics even if we assumed it had no flaws would only work in an completely idealistic setting.

It is most ways like the 'benevolent dictator' idea. Intellectual dung which someone with severe bias tries to make look good.

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are the problems with eugenics (other than possible moral problems)? Don't genes matter enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you insane? Have you got any understanding of evolution? Don't you know that it goes by trial and error, that it is the combination of genes that matters and that genii are born sometimes to moronic parents?

What you are suggesting is a weakening of the gene pool!

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
foal,
how about just criminalizing making a second own child? I don't see need for forced sterilization. Forced abortion, maybe, depending on how early it is (I don't have an opinion on abortion really).

I know it sounds unpleasant, but I see a LOT of potential in it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think China did this for awhile if not even to the present time. Welcome, Comrade!!

It's all about morality.

Modern abstract and especially scientific thought places man as a fifth wheel in thinking and therefore finds no connections to the world. This is the road to "no morality" in life. All of the world(s) are a moral tone poem. Look out into nature and this can be revealed to an artistic perception. Man is a part of this "moral tonality", a part of nature even though he disassociates himself in thought from nature which in reality is his very being.

Re: Eugenics
 

Tame Deuces summed it up.

Re: Eugenics
 

http://pbpl.physics.ucla.edu/About_U...ler/smails.jpg

"The world needs ditch diggers too."

Re: Eugenics
 

Eugenics should not be a mandatory social policy enforced by the government for reasons other posters have already stated (mainly, genetic diversity makes a species hearty and adaptable). Lifting research restrictions so that scientists can see what happens when they clone people or otherwise mess with genes would probably result in a lot of good things being discovered. Granted, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, but I am okay with that.

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
Forced sterilization was actually a policy (or at least a legal option often carried out) of many western countries in the early 1900s and I for one would not like to see it return.

[/ QUOTE ]

done well into the 70's or even 80's 90's for retards in some states in US I'm pretty sure.

I mean, tuskegee was only exposed in what, the sixties?

also hitler got all that eugenics stuff from movement in britain/US.

Re: Eugenics
 

Well also it's not really the stupid / lazy that cause all the problems. Most of the time it's intelligent people that are screwing everything up... see Karl Rove, Karl Marx... wait maybe it's just the Karls.

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Forced sterilization was actually a policy (or at least a legal option often carried out) of many western countries in the early 1900s and I for one would not like to see it return.

[/ QUOTE ]

done well into the 70's or even 80's 90's for retards in some states in US I'm pretty sure.

I mean, tuskegee was only exposed in what, the sixties?

also hitler got all that eugenics stuff from movement in britain/US.

[/ QUOTE ]
Err tuskegee was not forced sterilization. And I'm pretty sure it ended in the 60s. There may have been a few cases afterwards, but not nearly as many. The holocaust kind of put people off the whole thing.

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]

2.) It is illogical. It is based on assumptions that are at best misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to explain?

[ QUOTE ]
3.) It is impractical. Because enforcing it means totalitarity, which has a tendency to both fail spectacularly and be very expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is how you define totalitarity, we already live in one. We are definitely not free to do anything we want.


[ QUOTE ]
4.) It has severe implications. Eugenics in the past has led to some fairly bad political practices and some pretty stupid beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think these would be quite easy to avoid if some kind of international eugenics program were started and planned well. The goals are so long term, that spending a lot of time in discussion and planning would be insignificant.

[ QUOTE ]
5.) It is biased. Eugenics is usually not a result of some sound scientific insight but more a confirmation of some naive prejudice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim to know much about genetics, please explain why the prejudices are naive.

[ QUOTE ]
6.) It doesn't solve the problem it pretends to solve. You still end up with someone deciding who gets to reproduce based on partially subjective criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

The criteria could be chosen democratically, and then let a computer program count the people that are good enough based on the criteria. It would not necessarily need to be told to people whether they are considered good enough or not.

[ QUOTE ]
7.) It makes hazy assumptions. Eugenics assumes that the answer to a rather complex problem lies in only one place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know why you think eugenics would assume that.

[ QUOTE ]
8.) It isn't realistic. Eugenics even if we assumed it had no flaws would only work in an completely idealistic setting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If you mean that religious fanatics (and their followers) would oppose, I think we should not give up. I mean, seriously, Christianity is such a joke, and a bad one, why would we let it ruin the future of humanity (and other animals) without a good try?

[ QUOTE ]

It is most ways like the 'benevolent dictator' idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what ways (in addition to the bias thing)?

Re: Eugenics
 

Dude, you can't start choosing who is allowed to exist, Deuces explained it fairly clearly. You obviously are pretty ignorant to many things about humanity and history. Go read some good french philosophers like Foucault, Baudrillard etc. You might realise what can happen when things become completely regulated.

Re: Eugenics
 

I should add that this is my opinion, I can personally sympathize with genetic tampering (because I'm healthy and lucky) but I realize the implications of genetic tampering and a government who begins such a program. Hitler was way ahead of you man.


EDIT: this quote from tame deuces sums it up most simply, "5.) It is biased. Eugenics is usually not a result of some sound scientific insight but more a confirmation of some naive prejudice."

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
You obviously are pretty ignorant to many things about humanity and history.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously are pretty ignorant about future and what humanity could be.

Re: Eugenics
 

That's your opinion man, the technological future you want is a product of you being white and brought up in a westernized culture. The rest of the world might not agree with your views, this is what you don't seem to get. Whether or not eugenics is "right" is beside the point, the point is no one is given the inherent right to take over the world, it just kindof unfolds, mostly because of people like yourself who believe they are carrying the torch of the species

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]

The biggest problem is that it is

1.) Extremely oppressive.

But ok, you said we should disregard that. The remaining problems are:

2.) It is illogical. It is based on assumptions that are at best misguided.
3.) It is impractical. Because enforcing it means totalitarity, which has a tendency to both fail spectacularly and be very expensive.
4.) It has severe implications. Eugenics in the past has led to some fairly bad political practices and some pretty stupid beliefs.
5.) It is biased. Eugenics is usually not a result of some sound scientific insight but more a confirmation of some naive prejudice.
6.) It doesn't solve the problem it pretends to solve. You still end up with someone deciding who gets to reproduce based on partially subjective criteria.
7.) It makes hazy assumptions. Eugenics assumes that the answer to a rather complex problem lies in only one place.
8.) It isn't realistic. Eugenics even if we assumed it had no flaws would only work in an completely idealistic setting.

It is most ways like the 'benevolent dictator' idea. Intellectual dung which someone with severe bias tries to make look good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow this thread is absolutely BEGGING for an AC hijack, its the best I can do to simply allude to one and not actually hijack. I couldnt bring myself to refrain entirely.

Re: Eugenics
 

FWIW I more or less agree with the pro-eugenics guy. Not that a forced, state-sponsored eugenics program is a good idea, but simply that that is not the only kind of eugenics program one could envision.

I honestly think the technical problems are much more significant. We could support an ethical, moral eugenics program (at least, we could if you aren't a Christian Scientist or a Luddite) but ugh it would be tricky.

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:
Forced sterilization was actually a policy (or at least a legal option often carried out) of many western countries in the early 1900s and I for one would not like to see it return.



done well into the 70's or even 80's 90's for retards in some states in US I'm pretty sure.

I mean, tuskegee was only exposed in what, the sixties?

also hitler got all that eugenics stuff from movement in britain/US.


Err tuskegee was not forced sterilization. And I'm pretty sure it ended in the 60s. There may have been a few cases afterwards, but not nearly as many. The holocaust kind of put people off the whole thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah it mostly ended in the 60's.

I just meant it wasn't over in 1901. actually I think it started about then and got rolling in the 20's.

tuskegee goes to ethics, and it was a racial thing which is the basis of eugenics (kill nonwhites and inferior whites, in a nutshell).

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW I more or less agree with the pro-eugenics guy. Not that a forced, state-sponsored eugenics program is a good idea, but simply that that is not the only kind of eugenics program one could envision.

I honestly think the technical problems are much more significant. We could support an ethical, moral eugenics program (at least, we could if you aren't a Christian Scientist or a Luddite) but ugh it would be tricky.

[/ QUOTE ]

worked out well for the royals, didn't it?

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW I more or less agree with the pro-eugenics guy. Not that a forced, state-sponsored eugenics program is a good idea, but simply that that is not the only kind of eugenics program one could envision.

I honestly think the technical problems are much more significant. We could support an ethical, moral eugenics program (at least, we could if you aren't a Christian Scientist or a Luddite) but ugh it would be tricky.

[/ QUOTE ]

worked out well for the royals, didn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. A much better example than my snake/mongoose/gorilla thing, but I thought mine was funnier. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Eugenics could solve the problem that stupid people reproduce more

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a problem, because we live in a democracy (and I don't know good, realistic options to democracy). Which means that the votes and opinions of "stupid people" will start to matter more and more when their amount increases. Politics (and business) is a field where selfish people (including psychopaths) can be successful, and only try to benefit themselves. And their opinions can't be too different from the opinion of the stupid people, or they will not be popular. The stupid people don't care much about future (after their own lifetime). Add corruption, international companies (which decrease the power of politicians) etc. to that, and it really doesn't look like the decisions made by the politicians would consider much else than well-being of the stupid people (including short-term future) while also having to deal with pressure from business world. This means that other things would be ignored more and more. These other things include, but definitely aren't limited to, long-term future of mankind and animals (and also the treatment of animals, which is quite sick now in my opinion).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
while also hopefully increasing people's happiness (by fitting better to modern environment like cities) and making people care more about each other, animals and future generations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes! I’m 180º on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just say you oppose the happiness of people other than you?

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Eugenics could solve the problem that stupid people reproduce more

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a problem, because we live in a democracy (and I don't know good, realistic options to democracy). Which means that the votes and opinions of "stupid people" will start to matter more and more when their amount increases. Politics (and business) is a field where selfish people (including psychopaths) can be successful, and only try to benefit themselves. And their opinions can't be too different from the opinion of the stupid people, or they will not be popular. The stupid people don't care much about future (after their own lifetime). Add corruption, international companies (which decrease the power of politicians) etc. to that, and it really doesn't look like the decisions made by the politicians would consider much else than well-being of the stupid people (including short-term future) while also having to deal with pressure from business world. This means that other things would be ignored more and more. These other things include, but definitely aren't limited to, long-term future of mankind and animals (and also the treatment of animals, which is quite sick now in my opinion).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
while also hopefully increasing people's happiness (by fitting better to modern environment like cities) and making people care more about each other, animals and future generations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes! I’m 180º on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just say you oppose the happiness of people other than you?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with all this is that pretty much everyone now is smarter than anyone a couple thousand years ago. We are all getting smarter, not dumber.

Plus, if you really fear that we ARE getting dumber, our money and time would probably be better spent trying to educate all the dumb people rather than drive them out of existence.

If we somehow develop the technology and knowledge and experience and foresight to enact the plan you seem to be hatching, it would seem to also be possible to just make people smarter without, ya know, forced sterilizations or forced abortions or whatever. Thats MY kind of eugenics program.

Re: Eugenics
 

Some guy said it earlier "the world needs ditch diggers". Capitalism will fail without "stupid people" to put in the elbow grease, and buy the worthless products. I'm sure the mile high futuristic skyscraper you're gonna live in in the future will need pathetic workers to get constructed. You seriously need to rethink you're totally naive attitude to everyone who isn't like you. You write off too many things with simple labels and aren't confronting your real motivations. At the end of the day you are condoning erasure of certain types of people cause you can't transcend your own righteousness.

Re: Eugenics
 

You also seem to not really have an idea of who you want erased, just retards? or people who score below a certain point in IQ tests? just to be safe

Re: Eugenics
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some guy said it earlier "the world needs ditch diggers". Capitalism will fail without "stupid people" to put in the elbow grease, and buy the worthless products. I'm sure the mile high futuristic skyscraper you're gonna live in in the future will need pathetic workers to get constructed. You seriously need to rethink you're totally naive attitude to everyone who isn't like you. You write off too many things with simple labels and aren't confronting your real motivations. At the end of the day you are condoning erasure of certain types of people cause you can't transcend your own righteousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an unbelievably heartless, shallow, and honestly, short-sighted attitude. It shows absolutely no compassion. And hey, I'm all for brutally honest statements that show no compassion, but if you are going to be cavalier about the plight of a huge group of other human beings on Earth, wouldnt it also help to be, like, you know, right?

The world most certainly does not need ditch diggers. At least, not if everyone were smart enough to innovate.

EDIT: What I mean to say, of course, is lets just let the Alphas and Betas handle the grunt work amirite?

Re: Eugenics
 

vhawk,

I'm not only talking about intelligence, empathy is important too (I don't know how much genes have to do with that though, or how it would be detected well).

What are you basing your claim that we are getting smarter on? How much do you think education affects intelligence? Forced education isn't that easy either..

Also, do you think we are now doing a good job in making the world a good place to live for future generations (and ourselves and animals)? Or near to that? Wouldn't a little help be needed? In my opinion, it is, even if more education helps too.

In addition, eugenics might solve problems other than that (mainly, the fact that we are not well adapted to modern environment, which causes depression etc.).

Edit: I also never said I'd support forced sterilization or abortion.