Eugenics

[lucksack]

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.

[Fly]

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

[foal]

[ 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.

[PLOlover]

[ 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.

[foal]

[ 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.

[PLOlover]

[ 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).

[foal]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
eugenics isn't necessarily racist and racism isn't necessarily eugenic. most of the eugenics laws that existed in the 1900s were not race based, but targeted alcoholics, the "feeble-minded", sex offenders and carriers of genetic disease. many eugenics supporters were racist though, certainly.

[mickeyg13]

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.

[lucksack]

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.

[lucksack]

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.