Eugenics

[nucky9]

According to Oxford: "The study of methods of improving the quality of human populations by the application of genetic principles."

That says nothing at all about "society as a whole."

What does 'a population' mean to you?

High society is, in fact, its own society, but more to the point, the royal stock from whom it was permissible for pharaohs to marry was a population.

Sure, and I acknowledged you could look at it that way, you read that part, right? But, I don't think that would be considered common understanding of the term, nor was that the general motivation of those that sought to apply it. Regardless, it seems really important to you that any form of non-random mating be considered to be eugenics, so keep on keeping on, I guess.

 

[nucky9]

Read what I wrote please. Again, I write carefully. There were a bunch of slashes positing momentum and results.

I did, and I don't think I missed anything. If there is choice being made at the level of the individual, without planning at the societal level, it isn't eugenics.

 

[Lursa]

I did, and I don't think I missed anything. If there is choice being made at the level of the individual, without planning at the societal level, it isn't eugenics.

The program offered would be about plan and design. It just doesnt force people to participate. Again, the slashed terms matter and the results matter.

I'm tired of nitpicking at this. I'm not promoting it and I'm tired of pointing out the fact that eugenics doesnt have to be mandated (forced) to be applied.

 

[maquiscat]

You specifically mentioned "Howard Foundation".

OP didn't use that specific combination of words, and I didn't realize you were talking about the same thing.

@AConcernedCitizen he has something of a point. I specifically said:

Heinlein (author) provided a very good example in several of his novels and stories that centered around Lazarus Long and the Howards Families. Not a single person was ever forced or required to participate in a desired coupling, not prevented from an undesired coupling.

I guess I can see, given the myriad of stories out there, that one might not realize Howard Families and Howard Foundation were not from two separate stories/franchises. Personally I would have thought most would have made the connection, but I can see the logic in not putting them together.

not to mention a current in-universe time faction that genetically designs people for specific purposes as slaves. Because humans, so of course there's a market for that.

Pretty much the premise of Replicants in Blade Runner also, IIRC.

 

[maquiscat]

The Howard Foundation in Heinlein's books was the foundation that funded the financially incentivized eugenics program that led to the long-lived Howard Families mentioned in the OP, of whom the character Lazarus Long was a member. Members of the Howard Families were entitled to inherit significant sums from the Foundation on the condition that they marry someone from a list of approved potential mates with family history of long life.

Point of order. Not marry per se', although that was the convention they had to follow at the time. They were paid for each child produced with a person from that list.

 

[maquiscat]

Eh? Explain.

You are still conflating eugenics with force. Incentives and disincentives do not have to be forced driven. Again, I am not claiming that if tried in this time and era, it would not devolve to force, but that is the equivalent of using a hammer to kill. Using something unethically doesn't make the thing unethical in and of itself. And hell, even if conceived in the intent of using force to make it work, that doesn't change that in and of itself, it is still neutral. Nuclear was first developed as a weapon before it was developed as a power source. Your logic would claim that nuclear was unethical even when used as a power source instead of a weapon.

 

[maquiscat]

Again, your original OP is flawed, because outlawing incest has nothing to do with eugenics.

OK let's try this again, because I think you are injecting your biases into my post and addressing things that I am not addressing.

A common argument against eugenics: "Eugenics is wrong because we should never tell anyone with whom the can or cannot breed." Not claiming it is your argument, simply that it is a common one.

Many of the same people who make that argument will also make the argument: "We should not allowed those related closely by blood to breed because of the high chance of birth defects."

My point was that if a given person is making both of those arguments, they are being hypocritical. I think that you are trying to apply that singular point to the issue as a whole, instead of taking it for the singular point that it is.

Eugenics, as originally conceived, doesn't work, because it was based on flawed understanding of genetics.

I never made a claim that it did work, so this is a red herring at best or a strawman at worse. Flawed concept or not has no bearing on it being neutral in nature in and of itself, and only ethical or unethical based on how one applies it.

 

[maquiscat]

Actually, about half the population doesn't have the SRY gene. And I don't usually get pedantic about stuff like that, but if we are going to have a pedantry competition, I'll not be out-pedanted.

That last like is why we need other reactions such as ROFL!

And of that half that does not have the SRY gene, many are XY at their 23rd pair.

 

[maquiscat]

Would you say its good people like me dont get born anymore? This isnt an attack but consider what that phrase really means.

This is getting into the part of whether it is applied ethically or unethically. If by people like you, you mean furry or gay (Did I recall that one correctly?), then personally I would not consider trying to breed that out ethical. Problems like diabetes, or hereditary diseases or disorders, those I would consider ethical

Besides the emotional part i dont think you can ensure people with downs syndrome dont get born anymore anyway.

As noted before, whether or not using eugenics would actually work is a whole separate point from the one I am making.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

What does 'a population' mean to you?

From Oxford in regard to social sciences: "the total set of elements of interest in a given study."

In terms of eugenics, the population would be the group to which the breeding program is applied.

Sure, and I acknowledged you could look at it that way, you read that part, right? But, I don't think that would be considered common understanding of the term, nor was that the general motivation of those that sought to apply it. Regardless, it seems really important to you that any form of non-random mating be considered to be eugenics, so keep on keeping on, I guess.

More that the premise of the thread is whether breeding humans with the objective of producing a set of humans with a particular trait is inherently bad or not.

Methuselah's Children is frequently discussed in terms of eugenics in literary reviews and discussions. You tried to make the pedantic argument that it isn't technically eugenics by narrowing the definition of eugenics, but I think your pedantic semantic antics are not only pedantic, but also in error.

 

[bomberfox]

This is getting into the part of whether it is applied ethically or unethically. If by people like you, you mean furry or gay (Did I recall that one correctly?), then personally I would not consider trying to breed that out ethical. Problems like diabetes, or hereditary diseases or disorders, those I would consider ethical



As noted before, whether or not using eugenics would actually work is a whole separate point from the one I am making.

No i mean autistic… its not because im furry or bisexual, thats my personal stake in seeing these guys never get a crack in trying to eliminate us again.

Better to go the medical route of treatment. Kinda feels good to be a living testament to their failure.

 

[maquiscat]

Please explain the difference from what I wrote. I wrote planned, design, for one thing. It's not a salad bar of genetic traits. It's not 'curing' (altho it could) it's choice, planned.

The difference is in genetic editing, the method is to directly manipulate the genes on the genetic level. Eugenics operates on the breeding level, hoping to enhance or eliminate a given trait by who breeds with whom. Quite honestly, our ability to affect genes directly (although relatively primitive currently) is a method far more effective and efficient then eugenics will ever be. But then my point isn't about whether it is effective or efficient.

 

[maquiscat]

pedantic semantic antics

Love this!

 

[bomberfox]

The difference is in genetic editing, the method is to directly manipulate the genes on the genetic level. Eugenics operates on the breeding level, hoping to enhance or eliminate a given trait by who breeds with whom. Quite honestly, our ability to affect genes directly (although relatively primitive currently) is a method far more effective and efficient then eugenics will ever be. But then my point isn't about whether it is effective or efficient.

I agree with this yeah.

 

[maquiscat]

No i mean autistic… its not because im furry or bisexual, thats my personal stake in seeing these guys never get a crack in trying to eliminate us again.

Better to go the medical route of treatment. Kinda feels good to be a living testament to their failure.

Autistic covers a wide range of things. One the one side, if I could breed out (or genetically manipulate out) the aspect of some to be overwhelmed by stimuli, I would gladly do so. But on the other side of the coin many autistics are genuses. No way I would want that bred out. I would want those with autism to be able to function out in the world, and I am not using the concept of "function" that older generations tend to use.

 

[bomberfox]

Autistic covers a wide range of things. One the one side, if I could breed out (or genetically manipulate out) the aspect of some to be overwhelmed by stimuli, I would gladly do so. But on the other side of the coin many autistics are genuses. No way I would want that bred out. I would want those with autism to be able to function out in the world, and I am not using the concept of "function" that older generations tend to use.

Then we are very much at odds. I dont give a **** if one is a genius or not. Overstimulation can be treated much like any other.

Basically you cant really remove any of this from its ideological and historical underpinnings. Autism is really considered something that makes us well us.

Im aware of the function you speak of, its the difference between high functioning and low, ability to speak, etc.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I can in theory see that it might be necessary in some hypothetical extreme cases that are definitely not currently the case.

As in, there is an extremely easily transmitted and disease that will 100% kill everyone who catches it who does not have a certain genetic trait, and there is no other way to prevent it. In that case, preventing people without that trait from having children might be a reasonable response.

There are a lot of diseases that are passed down genetically, from sickle cell anemia, to gaucher disease.

Should people that have those traits be prevented from having offspring if the chance of passing it on is 100%, 50% 10% or never be prevented.

If being prevented from having offspring, does that mean forced sterilization at birth for those testing positive for the genetic trait. Doing so certainly move society down the path of “ genetic purity “ and most definitely an antithesis to individual freedom. Now certainly it has benefits to society, with fewer chronic diseases that generally drain resources, and if taken further could ensure those born are most likely to be intelligent and very physically healthy.

 

[The Mark]

There are a lot of diseases that are passed down genetically, from sickle cell anemia, to gaucher disease.

Should people that have those traits be prevented from having offspring if the chance of passing it on is 100%, 50% 10% or never be prevented.

If being prevented from having offspring, does that mean forced sterilization at birth for those testing positive for the genetic trait. Doing so certainly move society down the path of “ genetic purity “ and most definitely an antithesis to individual freedom. Now certainly it has benefits to society, with fewer chronic diseases that generally drain resources, and if taken further could ensure those born are most likely to be intelligent and very physically healthy.

That is why I specifically stated that the disease in the hypothetical scenario would absolutely kill anyone who got it, which is not the case with those other diseases...after consideration I'm not sure I know enough about how genetic diseases work to even do a hypothetical right.


What I was trying to get at is "there is something that is caused by a specific genetic trait which will absolutely and rapidly kill a person, so preventing that genetic trait from being passed on will save lives."
I'm not sure that is actually possible, given the...I dunno, flexibility? of genetics.

 

[reinaert]

Then we are very much at odds. I dont give a **** if one is a genius or not. Overstimulation can be treated much like any other.

Basically you cant really remove any of this from its ideological and historical underpinnings. Autism is really considered something that makes us well us.

Im aware of the function you speak of, its the difference between high functioning and low, ability to speak, etc.

As a fellow atyp let me just add that these normie mother****ers never look at us a persons. Eventually, they always want to solve us or farm us.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

That is why I specifically stated that the disease in the hypothetical scenario would absolutely kill anyone who got it, which is not the case with those other diseases...after consideration I'm not sure I know enough about how genetic diseases work to even do a hypothetical right.


What I was trying to get at is "there is something that is caused by a specific genetic trait which will absolutely and rapidly kill a person, so preventing that genetic trait from being passed on will save lives."
I'm not sure that is actually possible, given the...I dunno, flexibility? of genetics.

Almost nothing is 100-% when it comes to genetics

To my limited knowledge only if all four grandparents had the genetic trait and passed it on to their child/s then those two children would generally have a close to 100% chance of passing it on to their child.

As we normally get half of our chromosomes from each parent, only if both parents had on each side of their chromosomes would the child have a near 100% chance of getting the genetically passed down disease.

Which is why inbreeding is generally bad, genetic diseases don’t get “ filtered “ out

 

[Napoleon]

That is why I specifically stated that the disease in the hypothetical scenario would absolutely kill anyone who got it, which is not the case with those other diseases...after consideration I'm not sure I know enough about how genetic diseases work to even do a hypothetical right.


What I was trying to get at is "there is something that is caused by a specific genetic trait which will absolutely and rapidly kill a person, so preventing that genetic trait from being passed on will save lives."
I'm not sure that is actually possible, given the...I dunno, flexibility? of genetics.

While science has (chemically) mapped the human genome it has yet to determine what any of it actually does. Gene editing is available for sickle cell anemia but it is dangerous and ethically dubious because we really don’t know what we’re doing and it could very easily come back to haunt us later.

 

[The Mark]

While science has (chemically) mapped the human genome it has yet to determine what any of it actually does. Gene editing is available for sickle cell anemia but it is dangerous and ethically dubious because we really don’t know what we’re doing and it could very easily come back to haunt us later.

I should have been more clear, the hypothetical scenario is at some point in the future where we've somehow managed to nail down what certain genes do, so we aren't risking problems as you describe.
Of course, it's possible (probable?) that genes are not like that, and you cannot nail them down as one specific thing, since they do multiple.
I don't know, I barely no much more than that they exist and have some influence on us.

 

[Napoleon]

I should have been more clear, the hypothetical scenario is at some point in the future where we've somehow managed to nail down what certain genes do, so we aren't risking problems as you describe.
Of course, it's possible (probable?) that genes are not like that, and you cannot nail them down as one specific thing, since they do multiple.
I don't know, I barely no much more than that they exist and have some influence on us.

What will always be a hindrance is that we can never know the future value of a genetic mutation. One example that comes to mind is a set of mutations responsible for certain autoimmune disorders. Sounds bad, right? The flip side is that people with these same mutations were significantly more likely to survive the Black Death. The same mutation responsible for unwanted consequences like Chron’s disease can save your life.