Eugenics

[maquiscat]

can be passed through their parents (and may not have been expressed in their parents).

This here is a reason why I don't think that eugenics will ever be a viable working model for working certain negative traits (heritable cancers and other disorders) out of the human race. It would be too easy for a given trait to remain hidden for generations. Look at how we will occasionally get a white couple have a black baby because there was that in both their pasts and it stayed hidden. Or really anything that has skipped generations. But this point is completely different from that of my OP.

 

[maquiscat]

I reject the mix of incest and eugenics.
In that you only give one reason for incest to be made illegal. The most common basis of incest is rape. and it is the rape that is illegal. Sex occurring naturally between siblings or any member of a family living together are not common due to what is called the Westermarck effect.

First thank you for bringing up the Westermarck Effect. I use that a lot in arguments about incest, both actual (based on blood relationships) and legal (usually including steps and adopted). For the others following, the Westermarck Effect doesn't' care whether the people affected are blood related or not. It's growing up together and at certain early stages. Hence the Effect can end up applying to unrelated individuals, and blood relatives, even siblings, won't be affected if they don't grow up together.

I do agree with you that most cases, incest will end up being a case of rape. However, there are plenty of cases where it is not about rape. However, my point was not one intended to support or undermine the overall argument for incest laws, but to highlight the hypocritical reasons that many individuals give for the two issues. It wasn't intended to address any other arguments of either issue.

And in the cases where a parent or adult relative has sex with a child then it is rape.

Not necessarily. First there are the cases where the two never knew each other until the met as adults and engaged in sex. And sorry, but an 18 year or even 20 year gap, not to mention larger ones, is not really uncommon, today or in the past. And simple knowledge is not necessarily going to change anything. They would not be subject to the Westermarck Effect. Secondly, if nothing untowards happens while the child is growing up and the parent doesn't groom the child, but later in both their adult lives, they choose to sexually engage, then that is not rape either.

There are two kinds of eugenics. Negative eugenics in which they kill off or steralise those deemed unworthy of breeding. Or there is positive eugenics which is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the genetically advantaged, for example, the eminently intelligent, the healthy, and the successful.

You are more at how they are applied instead of what they are. Negative eugenics is the goal of removing traits usually by a lack of breeding. Positive is encouraging traits by breeding a desired combination. Yes you can apply negative eugenics by killing off or sterilizing a person by force, or you can apply it by simply discouraging it (not by law), with the individuals involved choosing whether or not to follow the advice.

Negative eugenics should need no explaining as to why it is illegal. And positive eugenics is what people practice naturally as long as the encouragement is the normal voluntary practice of mating.

 

[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).

No it does not have to be socially driven. Applied yes, although it can be done at subset levels of society. The example I gave with the Howard Families would be a good example of such. Again, I agree with the slippery slope danger when it comes to our current era, and honestly I'm not sure that we have seen an era yet where I would trust it to be done on any large scale. But my trust in how it is applied is different from my OP point.

 

[maquiscat]

Right, which explains the difference between medical genetics and eugenics. The first in voluntary; two parents are carriers for the allele for disorder X and they are told their chances of having an affected child would thus be 25%. Their learning of these risks would be voluntary, and so too would they have freedom to make decisions based on the information.
vs.
Eugenics (with modern technology) - mandatory whole-genome sequencing of the parents and either enforced gamete selection or being prevented from having children altogether.

They just aren't comparable at all.

Conflation fallacy

 

[maquiscat]

We could easily muddy the water by saying that natural selection is also a form of eugenics.

I would not agree with this in that there is no conscious choice going on in natural selection. With eugenics and gene manipulation there is a choice based on a desired end goal, other than "that one looks like a good mother/father"

it is just a matter of degree as to what is meant by selection. Is a man who prefers blondes practicing eugenics?

Again, no. The man is not looking to breed more blonds into the population. In fact, for all that he prefers blonde women, he also might prefer brunette children.

 

[maquiscat]

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.

My understanding is that eugenics is about breeding specifically in humans, not breeding in general. A specific subset if you will.

 

[maquiscat]

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.

Which ties right into my point about how I don't trust the current societies of the world today to make use of this tool. I don't think that it is necessarily unconstitutional, per the US constitution, unless you are jumping directly to the conflation of force.

If Eugenics is just a tool, it is a tool with inherent usage requirements that demand thinking I do not find acceptable.

It think that you are engaging in the common conflation of those usage requirements that have abounded here and in most of the west.

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.

Unbalanced comparison. We can use nuclear for good (power, medicine, etc) or we can use it for bad (weapons). You jumping straight to weapons imposed a bias. The same can be said for chemistry or biology. Right now we are using biology, both in breeding and gene manipulation, to try to producing higher yielding crops.

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.

I'll agree with you there, at least on a government level. And I think such encouragement should only be for positive eugenics, but not negative. Negative eugenics should only be "encouraged" by the disclosure of "if you breed there are these high risks". Again, I don't really trust anyone today to remain with these standards, but that's a seperate point.

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.

An excellent point and one that has nothing to do with whether or not eugenics in inherently bad or wrong. All this says is that we don't know enough to wield the tool properly, not that it is not a tool.

 

[maquiscat]

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.

I wouldn't say that was eugenics. It's more natural selection. Eugenics would require external intentional influence on which coupling happen.

If a government were to have it as a policy,

We'd have the world of GATTACA

 

[maquiscat]

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.

Agreed. For all my assertion that it is a tool, it is not a tool that I trust anyone current in power, in any sense of the word, to wield ethically, or at least not for long. I would trust only myself to do so, and I am not even sure about that after about 20 years.

 

[maquiscat]

Eugenics is a specific practice and a specific belief that goes beyond simply preventing a child from suffering. It is the deliberate orchestration of a population based on a specifically desired mold that those in charge wish to bring about.

That did not address the two arguments themselves. Both issues are full of a large number of arguments for and against. That one specific point was based upon who hang their assertion for the banning of one on the specific argument and then turn around and use the opposite on the other issue. If it is wrong to tell people who can or cannot breed with, then that applies to incest as well as eugenics (forced). There can be plenty of other good arguments as to why incest should be illegal, but my point isn't addressing them. It's addressing this specific hypocrisy.

 

[maquiscat]

That is true. Suggesting that they may occur at the same rate (you didn't) would be disingenuous.

While not suggesting it, I would postulate it. But that would also be under the specific condition that both had the gene in question. The problem is that unless it is looked for, we really don't know. I am framing it in the context of if two people possess the same negative gene, the odds of a birth defect are the same whether they are related or not. You seem to be framing it in the context that the odds of the two people possessing the same gene are lower in non-related than in related, which I agree with.

 

[soylentgreen]

First thank you for bringing up the Westermarck Effect. I use that a lot in arguments about incest, both actual (based on blood relationships) and legal (usually including steps and adopted). For the others following, the Westermarck Effect doesn't' care whether the people affected are blood related or not. It's growing up together and at certain early stages. Hence the Effect can end up applying to unrelated individuals, and blood relatives, even siblings, won't be affected if they don't grow up together.

I do agree with you that most cases, incest will end up being a case of rape. However, there are plenty of cases where it is not about rape. However, my point was not one intended to support or undermine the overall argument for incest laws, but to highlight the hypocritical reasons that many individuals give for the two issues. It wasn't intended to address any other arguments of either issue.

I do not see it as being hypocritical as the two are not really related. Eugenics is an attempt to manipulate future generations while incest is just a personal tragedy.

Not necessarily. First there are the cases where the two never knew each other until the met as adults and engaged in sex. And sorry, but an 18 year or even 20 year gap, not to mention larger ones, is not really uncommon, today or in the past. And simple knowledge is not necessarily going to change anything. They would not be subject to the Westermarck Effect. Secondly, if nothing untowards happens while the child is growing up and the parent doesn't groom the child, but later in both their adult lives, they choose to sexually engage, then that is not rape either.

And where is the harm in this kind of relationship? As long as they are aware that any child they produce may ( not will) have defects then the only harm done here is to other peoples sense of morality. The argument there is the same for abortion. ie; Mind their own ****ing business and stop pushing their morality on others.

You are more at how they are applied instead of what they are. Negative eugenics is the goal of removing traits usually by a lack of breeding. Positive is encouraging traits by breeding a desired combination. Yes you can apply negative eugenics by killing off or sterilizing a person by force, or you can apply it by simply discouraging it (not by law), with the individuals involved choosing whether or not to follow the advice.

And usually that discouragement is based on bigotry.

 

[soylentgreen]

I would not agree with this in that there is no conscious choice going on in natural selection. With eugenics and gene manipulation there is a choice based on a desired end goal, other than "that one looks like a good mother/father"



Again, no. The man is not looking to breed more blonds into the population. In fact, for all that he prefers blonde women, he also might prefer brunette children.

Even in the animal kingdom the animals make a conscious choice. That is why male birds have colourfull plumage or male bucks will but heads to fight off rivals and impress the females. Animals always seek to mate with strong partners .

He is not looking to breed more brunettes either if his choices are only blondes.

 

[The Mark]

Which ties right into my point about how I don't trust the current societies of the world today to make use of this tool. I don't think that it is necessarily unconstitutional, per the US constitution, unless you are jumping directly to the conflation of force.

I was mainly thinking about freedom of association - if you can't choose to associate with someone sexually because of eugenics, that seems unconstitutional.
But I do not claim to fully understand the constitution or how this kind of thing would interact with it. So it is possible it isn't.

It think that you are engaging in the common conflation of those usage requirements that have abounded here and in most of the west.

No, I don't think so.
Eugenics requires making a determination about which genetic traits are positive, and which negative, as a basis for determining who is allowed to procreate with who.
The kind of thinking required to reach such a determination is thinking I am extremely leery of, and opposed to in all but the most extreme cases. Hypothetically. I don't think any actual cases for using it currently exist.
Edit: Even in a hypothetical case where it's not a requirement or enforced, but encouragement and subsidy, that still is the government weighing in on such things in a way I find distasteful at minimum.

It still requires deciding that some genetic traits are unwanted.
And that is what I disagree with, unless you are talking extreme cases where it will literally kill a person, painfully.

If you're going to contend that there is a way to use Eugenics without this thinking, please explain how that would be possible.

Unbalanced comparison. We can use nuclear for good (power, medicine, etc) or we can use it for bad (weapons). You jumping straight to weapons imposed a bias. The same can be said for chemistry or biology. Right now we are using biology, both in breeding and gene manipulation, to try to producing higher yielding crops.

I used that comparison on purpose. I think it is precisely correct.
I am explicitly stating that I think Eugenics is inherently a bad thing, with negative consequences for anyone it is used on, and only in extreme cases is it potentially necessary, after extensive consideration of the side effects and consequences.
Just like nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

I'll agree with you there, at least on a government level. And I think such encouragement should only be for positive eugenics, but not negative. Negative eugenics should only be "encouraged" by the disclosure of "if you breed there are these high risks". Again, I don't really trust anyone today to remain with these standards, but that's a separate point.

I'm not sure it is possible to have "positive" eugenics, without inherently implying the negative side.
I don't think I would support such a program.
The government promoting certain genetic traits and saying it will subsidize you if you procreate to achieve them is extremely problematic on multiple levels, including that some will take it as condemnation of other traits, regardless of whether that is the case.
Also, it would require extreme levels of oversight, and even then I'm not sure it's worth the risk, except in extreme cases. For example, a hypothetical case where it is a scientific fact (as in, a theory supported by a bunch of evidence) that the survival of the human race is on the line. It is not enough for people to think it's necessary. That isn't a decision you can make based on opinion.

An excellent point and one that has nothing to do with whether or not eugenics in inherently bad or wrong. All this says is that we don't know enough to wield the tool properly, not that it is not a tool.

I will say that even if we eventually gain that knowledge, I'd still be extremely wary of using it for selective breeding of humans. I think doing so infringes on personal freedoms too much.
Only in extreme cases that are only hypothetical at this time would I consider it. Mainly I'm thinking of stuff from science fiction, like traits that are literally necessary to survive due to some changes in environment or whatever.

 

[Lursa]

Its the reality of the practice Lursa.

Not necessarily. People always seem to only consider negative motive and negative effects. As pure science, that wouldnt necessarily be true.

 

[Lursa]

My understanding is that eugenics is about breeding specifically in humans, not breeding in general. A specific subset if you will.

I was speaking to genetics in general.

 

[bomberfox]

That did not address the two arguments themselves. Both issues are full of a large number of arguments for and against. That one specific point was based upon who hang their assertion for the banning of one on the specific argument and then turn around and use the opposite on the other issue. If it is wrong to tell people who can or cannot breed with, then that applies to incest as well as eugenics (forced). There can be plenty of other good arguments as to why incest should be illegal, but my point isn't addressing them. It's addressing this specific hypocrisy.

I think it really drives to the heart of your misunderstanding in order to stretch the definition rather far.

 

[bomberfox]

Not necessarily. People always seem to only consider negative motive and negative effects. As pure science, that wouldnt necessarily be true.

Gee i wonder why . Personally i have a world of reasons to be hostile to it.

 

[bomberfox]

I was mainly thinking about freedom of association - if you can't choose to associate with someone sexually because of eugenics, that seems unconstitutional.
But I do not claim to fully understand the constitution or how this kind of thing would interact with it. So it is possible it isn't.



No, I don't think so.
Eugenics requires making a determination about which genetic traits are positive, and which negative, as a basis for determining who is allowed to procreate with who.
The kind of thinking required to reach such a determination is thinking I am extremely leery of, and opposed to in all but the most extreme cases. Hypothetically. I don't think any actual cases for using it currently exist.
Edit: Even in a hypothetical case where it's not a requirement or enforced, but encouragement and subsidy, that still is the government weighing in on such things in a way I find distasteful at minimum.

It still requires deciding that some genetic traits are unwanted.
And that is what I disagree with, unless you are talking extreme cases where it will literally kill a person, painfully.

If you're going to contend that there is a way to use Eugenics without this thinking, please explain how that would be possible.


I used that comparison on purpose. I think it is precisely correct.
I am explicitly stating that I think Eugenics is inherently a bad thing, with negative consequences for anyone it is used on, and only in extreme cases is it potentially necessary, after extensive consideration of the side effects and consequences.
Just like nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.



I'm not sure it is possible to have "positive" eugenics, without inherently implying the negative side.
I don't think I would support such a program.
The government promoting certain genetic traits and saying it will subsidize you if you procreate to achieve them is extremely problematic on multiple levels, including that some will take it as condemnation of other traits, regardless of whether that is the case.
Also, it would require extreme levels of oversight, and even then I'm not sure it's worth the risk, except in extreme cases. For example, a hypothetical case where it is a scientific fact (as in, a theory supported by a bunch of evidence) that the survival of the human race is on the line. It is not enough for people to think it's necessary. That isn't a decision you can make based on opinion.

I will say that even if we eventually gain that knowledge, I'd still be extremely wary of using it for selective breeding of humans. I think doing so infringes on personal freedoms too much.
Only in extreme cases that are only hypothetical at this time would I consider it. Mainly I'm thinking of stuff from science fiction, like traits that are literally necessary to survive due to some changes in environment or whatever.

It also is a big bald ass assumption to say that controlling breeding is the only way to solve societal problems as eugenicists claim.

 

[bomberfox]

Agreed. For all my assertion that it is a tool, it is not a tool that I trust anyone current in power, in any sense of the word, to wield ethically, or at least not for long. I would trust only myself to do so, and I am not even sure about that after about 20 years.

I think we should just forget using that tool and just focus on treating people’s problems instead of treating abnormalities like a disease infecting our society.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I was mainly thinking about freedom of association - if you can't choose to associate with someone sexually because of eugenics, that seems unconstitutional.

That is a conflation of force.

In the example given of the Howard Foundation, the trait of longevity was bred through financial incentives, for example.

No, I don't think so.
Eugenics requires making a determination about which genetic traits are positive, and which negative, as a basis for determining who is allowed to procreate with who.
The kind of thinking required to reach such a determination is thinking I am extremely leery of, and opposed to in all but the most extreme cases. Hypothetically. I don't think any actual cases for using it currently exist.

It doesn't actually require a determination of "which genetic traits are positive, and which negative." If the Howard Foundation had one program designed to produce humans that were taller, and anther program designed to produce humans that were shorter, where is the determination of positive or negative traits?

Which trait are horses bred for? To run fast? Or to pull a plough for long periods? Are dogs bred to be big shepherds and guard dogs? Or are they bred to be adorable little purse accessories? Breeding to produce a specialized result that is optimized for a certain function does not inherently place any particular value on that trait above all others.

I used that comparison on purpose. I think it is precisely correct.
I am explicitly stating that I think Eugenics is inherently a bad thing, with negative consequences for anyone it is used on, and only in extreme cases is it potentially necessary, after extensive consideration of the side effects and consequences.

What side effects or consequences? The only difference between eugenics and natural selection is the "natural" part. In fact, most people in the US believe that everyone is already the product of eugenics, rather than natural selection.

 

[bomberfox]

That is a conflation of force.

In the example given of the Howard Foundation, the trait of longevity was bred through financial incentives, for example.



It doesn't actually require a determination of "which genetic traits are positive, and which negative." If the Howard Foundation had one program designed to produce humans that were taller, and anther program designed to produce humans that were shorter, where is the determination of positive or negative traits?

Which trait are horses bred for? To run fast? Or to pull a plough for long periods? Are dogs bred to be big shepherds and guard dogs? Or are they bred to be adorable little purse accessories? Breeding to produce a specialized result that is optimized for a certain function does not inherently place any particular value on that trait above all others.



What side effects or consequences? The only difference between eugenics and natural selection is the "natural" part. In fact, most people in the US believe that everyone is already the product of eugenics, rather than natural selection.

and lots of us would be dead if eugenics were to continue *shrugs*. Those supporting the practice shouldnt expect a thank you… i think people should realize what some of us have at stake should the practice continue.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

and lots of us would be dead if eugenics were to continue *shrugs*. Those supporting the practice shouldnt expect a thank you… i think people should realize what some of us have at stake should the practice continue.

I can only assume you mean that a lot of people would be dead if some specific implementation of eugenics that you have in mind were to continue.

How would deliberate selection rather than natural selection inherently result in more deaths?

 

[bomberfox]

I can only assume you mean that a lot of people would be dead if some specific implementation of eugenics that you have in mind were to continue.

How would deliberate selection rather than natural selection inherently result in more deaths?

Are you kidding me?…

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Are you kidding me?…

No. Why would I be?