Eugenics

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the vast majority would agree about some desirable traits.

It's defined as social philosophy, not science in wikipedia.

[/ QUOTE ]

That the majority agrees on it doesn't mean it holds true.

The classic example is violent behavior. Most people would agree that violent traits are undesirable. But if you somehow manage to remove most violent traits you might end up with a society that is very easy to topple from outside or within (doesn't really matter which kind of society it is so this is potentially true for all societies).

So you can't really propose a good way of bunking traits into desireables and undesireable, which topples the eugenic philosophy.

As for it being a social philosophy, that is correct. But it usually pretends to be based on scientific principle when argued for by its proponents.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
We're nowhere near the stage where we can understand the consequences of our attempted improvements. Giving people happy genes may well destroy much of art and the subversive roots of innovation. Giving people beauty genes might destroy some of the variability required to survive things like radiation increases, toxins and plagues.

Beyond that, there's the question of man playing God. I think it's an inherently bad idea for one person to determine the mental and physical makeup of another. We don't know enough about ourselves, our world, our universe and what may lay beyond it to do such things.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like how I only impregnate blondes?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll refrain from digressing into politics since this is SMP, so I won't touch on the political issues. Besides we would just rail into the same ol' boring A vs S debate again.

Here:

There are no objective working means of figuring out which human traits are undesirable or desirable.

Eugenics isn't science, it is only bias sometimes dressed up as science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who needs "objective" means?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
dragonystic,

how about any trait having to be very widely accepted to be valued?

tarhee,

how does it isolate it? And I don't think moral issues are worth discussing in the same thread (at least not before it seems that the practical problems would be solvable).

[/ QUOTE ]

How about rather than having "accepted" and "unacceptable" traits, we simply had freedom to choose? So everyone could make themselves smarter or taller or more beautiful, whichever. This is still eugenics, its just not the draconian, paternalistic "I know whats best now fall in line, tardos" type of eugenics you have in mind.

I enjoy the topic of eugenics I just dont see why only megalomaniacs should get to talk about it.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

Who needs "objective" means?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, he is wrong because I think so then.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who needs "objective" means?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, he is wrong because I think so then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Works for me, fell free to abstain from the eugenics program.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who needs "objective" means?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, he is wrong because I think so then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Works for me, fell free to abstain from the eugenics program.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if your program is 'we will sterilize all people with undesirable traits who volunteer for sterilization' then sure, take it away. I don't have a problem with that.

But that isn't eugenics anymore. If you don't believe me, then check it out.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who needs "objective" means?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, he is wrong because I think so then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Works for me, fell free to abstain from the eugenics program.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if your program is 'we will sterilize all people with undesirable traits who volunteer for sterilization' then sure, take it away. I don't have a problem with that.

But that isn't eugenics anymore. If you don't believe me, then check it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why "sterilization" must play any role in my eugenics program, but if thats somehow part of the definition then fine, eugenics = bad.

EDIT: Well, on dictionary.com at least, most of the definitions seemed to agree with you, although there were a couple, at least, that could include what I have in mind and dont mandate sterilizations or a "birthing class."

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who needs "objective" means?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, he is wrong because I think so then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Works for me, fell free to abstain from the eugenics program.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if your program is 'we will sterilize all people with undesirable traits who volunteer for sterilization' then sure, take it away. I don't have a problem with that.

But that isn't eugenics anymore. If you don't believe me, then check it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why "sterilization" must play any role in my eugenics program, but if thats somehow part of the definition then fine, eugenics = bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you don't have to sterilize. That is just me overstating actually which is probably bad.

But as a philosophy used on a societal level? Yes you will have to forcefully intervene into how people reproduce at some point.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Well, on dictionary.com at least, most of the definitions seemed to agree with you, although there were a couple, at least, that could include what I have in mind and dont mandate sterilizations or a "birthing class."

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are talking about voluntary screening, voluntary birth control etc. I don't have a problem with that. But I think those try to avoid the term 'eugenics'.