Eugenics

[nucky9]

I wasnt aware that eugenics = mandated. I'm pretty sure there can be more than one path there; it doesnt have to be.

No, it does have to be societally driven, by definition. Eugenics isn't just a change in the genetic structure of the population - it is either enforced (negative) or encouraged (positive), but it isn't done at the level of the individual.

 

[Lursa]

No, it does have to be societally driven, by definition. Eugenics isn't just a change in the genetic structure of the population - it is either enforced (negative) or encouraged (positive), but it isn't done at the level of the individual.

Citations? I didnt even imply the bold, btw.

 

[mrjurrs]

I would prefer we not use dog science to base a sciencific conclusion on which one of our constitutional legal standards is measured involving familial sexual relationships and marriage. . Think of what we are doing. If you assume that broad right to privacy and marriage equality on which Obergefell was at least partially decided, the legal standard on which a state can build its case for regulation, is not just any state interest, we are to apply the strict scrutiny standard and that means a finding of a compelling state interest that supercedes the assumption of citizenry to be free of legal regulation. That science may be the ONLY legitmate state interest. I also think we need a fresh look at these statutes post Obergefell, considering a very different world where coercion in relationships and marriage looks different. Divorce is far easier to get, the whole idea of family or spousal isolation and abuse, is as much about clicking a mouse or dialing a phone to a shelter as it is getting a suitcase packed, a car and driving to a police station or your parents farm 40 miles away. Nothing is the same as it was in the 50's and 60's. What we needed to protect people and society from a possible coercive danger when unequal power in relationships is not the same as now.

Dog science? Humans are nothing but a different animal.

 

[Lursa]

Dog science? Humans are nothing but a different animal.

The breeding of domestics animals is all pretty much the same in terms of the hazards and benefits of concentrating specific traits and yeah...humans are just other animals.

 

[btthegreat]

Dog science? Humans are nothing but a different animal.

Can you imagine California Attorney General's counsel walking into SCOTUS oral arguments, defending their legal brief in favor of a state's right to regulate familial sex and marriage, based on a poodle study of puppy defects? We need science based on human genetics and biology and it can't be a 1977 study.

 

[mrjurrs]

Can you imagine California Attorney General's counsel walking into SCOTUS oral arguments, defending their legal brief in favor of a state's right to regulate familial sex and marriage, based on a poodle study of puppy defects? We need science based on human genetics and biology and it can't be a 1977 study.

You may have noticed that scientific research often uses other animals in place of humans to reach conclusions about humans.

It seems humans are kind of nitpicky about taking part in experiments...

 

[The Mark]

A post came across my wife's FB page with regards to eugenics. And while most people were pretty much just bashing it (with no real reasoning other than "it's bad"), a couple of people brought up some point that I can't find myself disagreeing with. And I thought that maybe reviewing said point would make for good discussion.

One of the first thing to be look at is the point of separating out eugenics itself from how it is/was applied. The assertion was the eugenics itself is neither good nor bad. It's a tool. It depends upon who wields it and how, that would make its use good or bad. And I agree with that point. Eugenics is the seeking of the improvement of the human species through breeding. Now obviously the term improvement as applied to the human species will be highly subjective. But that does not detract from the fact that eugenics itself is a tool that is neither good nor bad.

Now I want to make this point clear. Just because I agree with the point that eugenics is simply a tool, or whatever, that is neither good nor bad, and can be wielded either ethically or unethically, that does not mean that I trust most humans to actually wield it ethically. Especially in this current era, I would expect that more people would abuse it than use it. But that is separate from the concept of whether or not eugenics is inherently unethical or good/bad.

A lot of what I saw in the way of argument was the use of conflation fallacy to assume that eugenics required forced breeding or prevention of breeding through various methods and/or laws. I honestly cannot see anything about eugenics that would require such. That is not to say that I can not see individuals or governments (see previous point) using eugenics as reasoning to enact such force, but, again, that is seperate from eugenics itself. Eugenics can easily be used ethically, with no force. Now that would most likely result in a very slow progress of desired goals, but it still can be ethically applied. 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'm going to let this thread get going, but I want to end with this one realization I had. If we are going to claim that we cannot allow eugenics to manifest into law, and prevent, based upon genetics, any individual's choice to breed with anyone else of their choice, then we cannot have incest laws that prevent breeding between those closely related by blood. Incest laws are actually applied eugenics.

In order to selectively breed humans, you have to determine which traits are unworthy of continued procreation, and prevent people with those traits from having children.
This is unacceptable in my book, and I think unconstitutional.
If Eugenics is just a tool, it is a tool with inherent usage requirements that demand thinking I do not find acceptable.

I have to disagree with the contention that it is just a tool. I think Eugenics is indeed inherently bad.
I would compare it's usage to that of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Bad, but possibly necessary in extreme scenarios.

Even some kind of encourage/discourage thing like "we will provide subsidy to persons with these traits if they do not procreate" is highly questionable, in my opinion.

Additionally, I do not think that we currently have a firm enough grasp on genetics for a determination of which traits do what to be made. Or at least not with enough certainty that trying to promote or eliminate them is reasonable.


Selective breeding of humans is a tool that I would only accept the use of in an extreme hypothetical situation, such as "People with this trait will spontaneously combust in an uncontrolled nuclear fusion reaction of at least 100 megatons in size at a random point in their life."
In short, something that will end the lives of them and many others nearby.
Although I'm not sure it wouldn't be better to have them live somewhere really far away from anyone else. That's a tough hypothetical scenario.

 

[btthegreat]

You may have noticed that scientific research often uses other animals in place of humans to reach conclusions about humans.

It seems humans are kind of nitpicky about taking part in experiments...

its not an experiment its a study. . The problem isn't finding human guinea pigs, we really don't need those, These people have to fill out questionaires, provide a genetic screen, and offer up their medical histories. The problem is finding people who openly admit to having familial parents. you put the wanted ad "if you have parents that are also your uncles, aunts, or siblings, please email us at......" Or "if you had sex with your sibling, or mother/father and begat children, please call 1-800-456 -5532..." How do you find people who want to answer those ads?

 

[maquiscat]

No, your example of positive eugenics isn't correct, since it isn't being driven at the societal level. A better example would be the government giving certain people money to have children. But, it isn't hard to imagine how slippery that slope becomes, and it would just be a form of institutionalized classism.

Edit: Just to drive the point further, what you are describing is natural selection. And, just like medical genetics, this isn't synonymous with eugenics (of either type).

You are using the wrong context. Negative eugenics is the removal of stock from the breeding pool and positive eugenics is the bringing about of the breeding. Now they can be as simple as discouraging and encouraging, respectively, specific pair breeding, or go as extreme as in killing the undesirable and forcing the desirable to breed. The positive and negative in that context isn't about what the motivating force behind it is.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Eugenics generally occurs all the time, the smartest people tend to socialize with other intelligent people most likely marrying them and having children. The best looking tend to socialize and marry other very good looking people.

Money of course interrupts this process allowing the ugly or less intelligent to marry above their " level.

As for eugenics as a policy.

If a government were to have it as a policy, it would almost certainly result in tests to allow people to have offspring. The argument would of course be if these two people have offspring the chances are they will go on welfare and be a burden to society. So they will be allowed to marry but sterilized as to prevent reproducing.

As it would be elites making these decisions it is unlikely they would perform genetic tests to find the best potential pairing and force them to reproduce.

Artificial insemination and surrogate pregnancy of course could be used to have offspring of the most intelligent or best looking occur even if they never want to reproduce with the other

Imagine the offspring of Usian Bolt with a female Olympic gold medalist. The physical potential of that child would be massive. It of course just potential, as motivation, training etc would still need to occur on an elite level

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

its not an experiment its a study. . The problem isn't finding human guinea pigs, we really don't need those, These people have to fill out questionaires, provide a genetic screen, and offer up their medical histories. The problem is finding people who openly admit to having familial parents. you put the wanted ad "if you have parents that are also your uncles, aunts, or siblings, please email us at......" Or "if you had sex with your sibling, or mother/father and begat children, please call 1-800-456 -5532..." How do you find people who want to answer those ads?

US south east, parts of the ME, Hutterrite colonies

 

[Napoleon]

A post came across my wife's FB page with regards to eugenics. And while most people were pretty much just bashing it (with no real reasoning other than "it's bad"), a couple of people brought up some point that I can't find myself disagreeing with. And I thought that maybe reviewing said point would make for good discussion.

One of the first thing to be look at is the point of separating out eugenics itself from how it is/was applied. The assertion was the eugenics itself is neither good nor bad. It's a tool. It depends upon who wields it and how, that would make its use good or bad. And I agree with that point. Eugenics is the seeking of the improvement of the human species through breeding. Now obviously the term improvement as applied to the human species will be highly subjective. But that does not detract from the fact that eugenics itself is a tool that is neither good nor bad.

Now I want to make this point clear. Just because I agree with the point that eugenics is simply a tool, or whatever, that is neither good nor bad, and can be wielded either ethically or unethically, that does not mean that I trust most humans to actually wield it ethically. Especially in this current era, I would expect that more people would abuse it than use it. But that is separate from the concept of whether or not eugenics is inherently unethical or good/bad.

A lot of what I saw in the way of argument was the use of conflation fallacy to assume that eugenics required forced breeding or prevention of breeding through various methods and/or laws. I honestly cannot see anything about eugenics that would require such. That is not to say that I can not see individuals or governments (see previous point) using eugenics as reasoning to enact such force, but, again, that is seperate from eugenics itself. Eugenics can easily be used ethically, with no force. Now that would most likely result in a very slow progress of desired goals, but it still can be ethically applied. 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'm going to let this thread get going, but I want to end with this one realization I had. If we are going to claim that we cannot allow eugenics to manifest into law, and prevent, based upon genetics, any individual's choice to breed with anyone else of their choice, then we cannot have incest laws that prevent breeding between those closely related by blood. Incest laws are actually applied eugenics.

I believe there are two categories of Eugenics:

1) Simply allowing for natural selection. If nature decides that some humans are unfit for purpose then let it have what it can take. This is inconsistent with modern values (at least in the West) but is essential for the long term survival of our species.

2) Active manipulation of the gene pool. This is foolish because science doesn’t presently understand genetics well enough to know the scope and scale of the consequences.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I believe there are two categories of Eugenics:

1) Simply allowing for natural selection. If nature decides that some humans are unfit for purpose then let it have what it can take. This is inconsistent with modern values (at least in the West) but is essential for the long term survival of our species.

2) Active manipulation of the gene pool. This is foolish because science doesn’t presently understand genetics well enough to know the scope and scale of the consequences.

Mutations occur which makes absolute certainty impossible. But in general if two tall people have offspring chances are there offspring will be tall

 

[bomberfox]

Eugenics is ultimately a subjective evaluation of the people in charge. Those “not worthy of life” dont get a say.

 

[bomberfox]

A post came across my wife's FB page with regards to eugenics. And while most people were pretty much just bashing it (with no real reasoning other than "it's bad"), a couple of people brought up some point that I can't find myself disagreeing with. And I thought that maybe reviewing said point would make for good discussion.

One of the first thing to be look at is the point of separating out eugenics itself from how it is/was applied. The assertion was the eugenics itself is neither good nor bad. It's a tool. It depends upon who wields it and how, that would make its use good or bad. And I agree with that point. Eugenics is the seeking of the improvement of the human species through breeding. Now obviously the term improvement as applied to the human species will be highly subjective. But that does not detract from the fact that eugenics itself is a tool that is neither good nor bad.

Now I want to make this point clear. Just because I agree with the point that eugenics is simply a tool, or whatever, that is neither good nor bad, and can be wielded either ethically or unethically, that does not mean that I trust most humans to actually wield it ethically. Especially in this current era, I would expect that more people would abuse it than use it. But that is separate from the concept of whether or not eugenics is inherently unethical or good/bad.

A lot of what I saw in the way of argument was the use of conflation fallacy to assume that eugenics required forced breeding or prevention of breeding through various methods and/or laws. I honestly cannot see anything about eugenics that would require such. That is not to say that I can not see individuals or governments (see previous point) using eugenics as reasoning to enact such force, but, again, that is seperate from eugenics itself. Eugenics can easily be used ethically, with no force. Now that would most likely result in a very slow progress of desired goals, but it still can be ethically applied. 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'm going to let this thread get going, but I want to end with this one realization I had. If we are going to claim that we cannot allow eugenics to manifest into law, and prevent, based upon genetics, any individual's choice to breed with anyone else of their choice, then we cannot have incest laws that prevent breeding between those closely related by blood. Incest laws are actually applied eugenics.

I must say that the way it was applied was always baked into the cake and there hasnt been a eugenicist that hasnt eventually turned into another one. Incest laws dont really count as eugenics because the outcome is not a specifically targeted group for erasure, it is done because it results in so many negative birth defects that dont allow a child to have a future.

 

[bomberfox]

I wasnt aware that eugenics = mandated. I'm pretty sure there can be more than one path there; it doesnt have to be.

Eugenics is specifically mandated. Its more than just choosing better suitors.

 

[bomberfox]

The breeding of domestics animals is all pretty much the same in terms of the hazards and benefits of concentrating specific traits and yeah...humans are just other animals.

Its also a bit different than just controlled breeding. The logic of the eugenicist requires expunging of the bad genes through execution, controlled breeding, or genocide. i.e. whatever those in charge consider to be bad genes. Its why we dont do it anymore.

 

[bomberfox]

A post came across my wife's FB page with regards to eugenics. And while most people were pretty much just bashing it (with no real reasoning other than "it's bad"), a couple of people brought up some point that I can't find myself disagreeing with. And I thought that maybe reviewing said point would make for good discussion.

One of the first thing to be look at is the point of separating out eugenics itself from how it is/was applied. The assertion was the eugenics itself is neither good nor bad. It's a tool. It depends upon who wields it and how, that would make its use good or bad. And I agree with that point. Eugenics is the seeking of the improvement of the human species through breeding. Now obviously the term improvement as applied to the human species will be highly subjective. But that does not detract from the fact that eugenics itself is a tool that is neither good nor bad.

Now I want to make this point clear. Just because I agree with the point that eugenics is simply a tool, or whatever, that is neither good nor bad, and can be wielded either ethically or unethically, that does not mean that I trust most humans to actually wield it ethically. Especially in this current era, I would expect that more people would abuse it than use it. But that is separate from the concept of whether or not eugenics is inherently unethical or good/bad.

A lot of what I saw in the way of argument was the use of conflation fallacy to assume that eugenics required forced breeding or prevention of breeding through various methods and/or laws. I honestly cannot see anything about eugenics that would require such. That is not to say that I can not see individuals or governments (see previous point) using eugenics as reasoning to enact such force, but, again, that is seperate from eugenics itself. Eugenics can easily be used ethically, with no force. Now that would most likely result in a very slow progress of desired goals, but it still can be ethically applied. 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'm going to let this thread get going, but I want to end with this one realization I had. If we are going to claim that we cannot allow eugenics to manifest into law, and prevent, based upon genetics, any individual's choice to breed with anyone else of their choice, then we cannot have incest laws that prevent breeding between those closely related by blood. Incest laws are actually applied eugenics.

Why do you think we dont do it anymore? To describe it as just a tool is to take it out of its historical context which it cannot remove itself from. This also takes eugenics out of the logical context upon which it is derived.

 

[Lursa]

Can you imagine California Attorney General's counsel walking into SCOTUS oral arguments, defending their legal brief in favor of a state's right to regulate familial sex and marriage, based on a poodle study of puppy defects? We need science based on human genetics and biology and it can't be a 1977 study.

Eugenics is specifically mandated. Its more than just choosing better suitors.

No, it's also social theory, a science examining genetic outcomes, and/or a practice that can or may not be followed. It can be presented to a community or population...and followed based on principle, personal preference, or other personal factors.

 

[bomberfox]

No, it's also social theory, a science examining genetic outcomes, and/or a practice that can or may not be followed. It can be presented to a community or population...and followed based on principle, personal preference, or other personal factors.

Lets put it into real life context, sure in theory it may be possible but the people in charge wont wait that long. The resident forum eugenicist will attest to such i am sure.

 

[bomberfox]

This also assumes that controlled breeding is the only way for which we can improve on humanity, same with letting the weak die off for the strong.

 

[Lursa]

Lets put it into real life context, sure in theory it may be possible but the people in charge wont wait that long. The resident forum eugenicist will attest to such i am sure.

For discussion purposes? No thanks. It's broader than govt use of force.

 

[bomberfox]

The term you're looking for is medical genetics. There is no such thing as ethical eugenics, since the modern meaning of the word is state-driven control of breeding. Beyond that, to have any meaningful on the genetics of a population, it would need to be industrial in scale. There are many other issues with it too, even disregarding ethics or intent.

This. Theres a conflation problem in the opening post.

 

[bomberfox]

For discussion purposes? No thanks. It's broader than govt use of force.

For discussion purposes maybe i agree.

 

[iguanaman]

Nature through natural selection uses this process to ensue the human race is viable and can maintain itself against a evolving and sometimes hostile environment. This goes against our belief that all human life is valuable and everyone should be saved. I believe in the law of unintended consequences. We shouldn't be messing with this because we might do more harm than good and we have a tendency to blame others when things go wrong.

LOL We use our brains to reduce human suffering, cure diseases and extend our lifespans and that could do more harm than good? Meanwhile we are digging up millions of tons of fossil carbon every year from the last mass extinction and releasing it back into our air. Does anyone realize that the sequestered carbon buried deep in the earth is there because if it wasn't humans and much of the other life on this planet would not exist? We are "messing" with the carbon balance of the earth which has been the cause of nearly every mass extinction. Some would say the the earth has given us enough rope to hang ourselves.