Eugenics

[bomberfox]

No. Why would I be?

The other half of eugenics is the getting rid of the unsavory. Its baked into the cake. When they realize that either the controlled breeding doesnt solve a problem or get rid of the unsavory, they get to killin.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

The other half of eugenics is the getting rid of the unsavory. Its baked into the cake.

No it isn't. Not even the concept of "unsavory" is baked into the cake.

If anything, "getting rid of the unsavory" is baked into the natural selection cake, rather than the deliberate selection cake. Deliberate breeding can, in fact, preserve traits that would have otherwise been naturally selected out. I doubt pugs would do very well in the wild, for example.

 

[The Mark]

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

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.

 

[The Mark]

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.

I didn't see this example, I was responding to a post.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

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.

To what end? That genetic trait is going to be naturally selected for anyway in that scenario.

I think a better premise would be that humanities survival depended on some kind of mission to a planet that humans weren't optimized to survive on, and required a crew composed of people that could survive extreme g-forces, withstand high levels of radiation, and breath air with high levels of chlorine dioxide.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I didn't see this example, I was responding to a post.

It was the example given in the OP.

 

[The Mark]

To what end? That genetic trait is going to be naturally selected for anyway in that scenario.

I think a better premise would be that humanities survival depended on some kind of mission to a planet that humans weren't optimized to survive on, and required a crew composed of people that could survive extreme g-forces, withstand high levels of radiation, and breath air with high levels of chlorine dioxide.

If you know people with that trait would die, why not preempt nature? That way less people would die.
That was what I was thinking of.
But possibly it was a bad example.

 

[The Mark]

It was the example given in the OP.

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.

To be clear, I think even voluntary and incentivized (by whatever currency or goods or power the incentivizing entity uses) eugenics is questionable at best.
We humans have far too long a history of disliking, othering, and pushing people down based on genetic traits...perceived or real. So even if it's voluntary, I can't see myself thinking it's good.

I would probably accept it because it's voluntary, however. I'd just dislike it.


Edit: I'm reminded of two different science fiction series/universe that genetics (and eugenics, I think?) play a role in, to some degree...by the same author, actually.

Honor Harrington Series by David Weber

Harrington, the heroine of the eponymous Honorverse, is an officer in the Royal Manticoran Navy (RMN), the space navy of the Star Kingdom of Manticore....

www.goodreads.com

tl;dr - as humanity expanded in this universe, various factions went off to settle planets, and some used handwave future tech genetic manipulation to modify their populations to better survive the conditions on said planets. Also some natural adjustment due to selection while living on such planets, with different gravity or toxins, etc.
And then there was the whole thing with genetically engineered armies wrecking earth and various ****ery of the like, 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.

Dahak Series by David Weber

Mutineers' Moon (Dahak, #1), The Armageddon Inheritance (Dahak, #2), Heirs of Empire (Dahak, #3), Восход луны (Dahak, #1-2), and Empire From the Ashes (...

www.goodreads.com

It's been longer since I read this, but if memory serves, the ancient stellar empire that the author had as the origin of humans had all intermingled to the point that most had similar skin color and the like, but for whatever reason that I can't recall they factionalized and diversified genetically after a ship's crew was stranded on earth by some complex ****ery that is key to the plot. This series started before the one above, so I suspect the author dug into the topic more as that much longer running series continued.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

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.

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.

 

[The Mark]

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.

In a way, that's at least somewhat similar to how royalty and nobility worked (still works?), although those tended to be more about political power, rather than improving the genetics of the family.
If my half-assed history knowledge is correct, there was even a noble family or two who ran into negative genetic effects due to marrying cousins too often because of political power.
Although that last might be partially legend/myth, not sure.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

In a way, that's at least somewhat similar to how royalty and nobility worked (still works?), although those tended to be more about political power, rather than improving the genetics of the family.
If my half-assed history knowledge is correct, there was even a noble family or two who ran into negative genetic effects due to marrying cousins too often because of political power.
Although that last might be partially legend/myth, not sure.

Its a real thing. Charles II of Spain being probably the most notable example.

Although the terms "genetics" and "eugenics" weren't around at the time, the pharaohs of ancient Egypt likewise avoided diluting their divine bloodline with the blood of mortals.

 

[nucky9]

Right those are methods rather than value judgments though i think every eugenicist will use the negative eventually.

Yeah, it's one of those things that might sound good on paper, but it just isn't appropriate to use for a population.

 

[nucky9]

It is societally driven, for the most part. That's not 'mandated' necessarily. It's about focus and purpose...where it's taken from there, and how, can vary widely.

No, not for the most part, societally driven full stop. You can't effect a directed change in the genetic composition of a population without it being large scale.

I don't really understand your second point - it is quite vague. Do you have examples to explain?

 

[nucky9]

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.

No it does. By definition. If you mean something other than eugenics than use a different term.

This is (literally) the textbook definition: "On a societal level, eugenics refers to programs or policies that control human reproduction with the intent of changing the genetic structure of the population. The goal is quite different from that of medical genetics, which is to relieve suffering (see Bioethics). Eugenics works in two directions. Positive eugenics creates incentives for reproduction among those considered superior; negative eugenics interferes with reproduction of those judged inferior. Obviously, eugenic measures are highly subjective." (Lewis, Ricki Human Genetics 13th Ed. McGrawHill).

Now, what constitutes a society/population can be subjective, but I think saying it is a one or a small group of mating pairs is stretching things.

 

[nucky9]

Conflation fallacy

Eh? Explain.

 

[nucky9]

Its a real thing. Charles II of Spain being probably the most notable example.

Although the terms "genetics" and "eugenics" weren't around at the time, the pharaohs of ancient Egypt likewise avoided diluting their divine bloodline with the blood of mortals.

Maintaining bloodlines isn't eugenics. The idea wasn't to improve society as a whole.

 

[nucky9]

The other half of eugenics is the getting rid of the unsavory. Its baked into the cake. When they realize that either the controlled breeding doesnt solve a problem or get rid of the unsavory, they get to killin.

Or sterilizing, but yeah...

 

[nucky9]

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.

Everyone has the same genes. You mean alleles. And, I don't usually get pedantic about stuff like that, but it is clear you've heard something, think you understand what it means, but don't. Again, your original OP is flawed, because outlawing incest has nothing to do with eugenics.

Eugenics, as originally conceived, doesn't work, because it was based on flawed understanding of genetics. It would be possible to 'do it right' but that would require all pregnancies to be initiated in a lab, where the gametes would need to be pre-screened. You could also do it 'mostly right' by requiring everyone to submit to DNA sequencing before having kids, and then disallowing those who carry or present with various genetic abnormalities from conceiving. Even there though, de novo mutations in the gametes would still be possible (which is why it is only mostly right).

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Maintaining bloodlines isn't eugenics. The idea wasn't to improve society as a whole.

There is nothing inherent to eugenics about improving "society as a whole," only the specific population that is being bred for the desired trait.

In the case of the pharaohs, it was intended to optimize the trait of divinity within the population of royals.

 

[Lursa]

No, not for the most part, societally driven full stop. You can't effect a directed change in the genetic composition of a population without it being large scale.

I don't really understand your second point - it is quite vague. Do you have examples to explain?

If by consensus with genetic predictions carried out, etc...is your assumption it must always be a negative thing?

Example: introducing a gene that confers resistance to cancer or influenza (this one more significant since it's a contagious disease). I will say tho, that while I may support such a program, I would not mandate it by law, it would still be 'opt-in.' It would however, be a, for example, nation-wide program.

 

[Argent]

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 isn't entirely true due to medical intervention that prevents deaths that would naturally occur which can then perpetuate genetic diseases and abnormalities among those who have offspring.

 

[bomberfox]

Everyone has the same genes. You mean alleles. And, I don't usually get pedantic about stuff like that, but it is clear you've heard something, think you understand what it means, but don't. Again, your original OP is flawed, because outlawing incest has nothing to do with eugenics.

Eugenics, as originally conceived, doesn't work, because it was based on flawed understanding of genetics. It would be possible to 'do it right' but that would require all pregnancies to be initiated in a lab, where the gametes would need to be pre-screened. You could also do it 'mostly right' by requiring everyone to submit to DNA sequencing before having kids, and then disallowing those who carry or present with various genetic abnormalities from conceiving. Even there though, de novo mutations in the gametes would still be possible (which is why it is only mostly right).

It would mostly require constant effort which most likely isnt going to be worth the hassle anyway and people start to rebel when its their kids on the line. It treats genetic mutations like communicable diseases which can simply be eliminated. It doesnt work that way.

 

[bomberfox]

If by consensus with genetic predictions carried out, etc...is your assumption it must always be a negative thing?

Example: introducing a gene that confers resistance to cancer or influenza (this one more significant since it's a contagious disease). I will say tho, that while I may support such a program, I would not mandate it by law, it would still be 'opt-in.' It would however, be a, for example, nation-wide program.

I think that would fall under medical genetics which isnt quite the same.

 

[Lursa]

I think that would fall under medical genetics which isnt quite the same.

Distinction?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Everyone has the same genes. You mean alleles. And, I don't usually get pedantic about stuff like that, but...

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.