Eugenics

[bomberfox]

Distinction?

Distinction would be it seeks to not necessarily control breeding or get rid of people with bad genes.

 

[Lursa]

Distinction would be it seeks to not necessarily control breeding or get rid of people with bad genes.

Those are not the sole purpose of eugenics. Btw, it wouldnt 'get rid of people with bad genes,' such people would no longer be born, supposedly, eventually. And...how is that negative? It could be, but not necessarily at all.

It also doesnt control breeding, unless people are forced to do so. And again, only if mandated.

 

[bomberfox]

Those are not the sole purpose of eugenics. Btw, it wouldnt 'get rid of people with bad genes,' such people would no longer be born, supposedly, eventually. And...how is that negative? It could be, but not necessarily at all.

It also doesnt control breeding, unless people are forced to do so. And again, only if mandated.

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

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

 

[Lursa]

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

Not being baited into that. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Yeah, I'm not going there.

 

[nucky9]

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

No, that's wrong. I'm not making a value statement here and I don't think the objectives nor the means of eugenics are desirable/possible to succeed. But that is the technical objective of the practice. "Desired trait" is exactly what it is, at the societal level - and that trait is one thought to be for the betterment of society as a whole by those who push the practice. That is what makes it seductive - see the OP, for instance. Again, though don't mistake me for approving of the objectives or means, because I don't for either, but is both the stated goal and thought process behind the practice. There are many many problems with the practice, both ethically and technically.

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

Sure, but that isn't a societal thing unless you consider the pharaohs to be their own society. Non-random mating isn't eugenics.

 

[nucky9]

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.

Haha, yeah, thought about that after I posted, and fair enough - the genes on the Y chromosome are (partially) an exception. But pedantry and a 'gotcha' wasn't the purpose of what I posted, but rather to highlight the fact that the OP seems sure of facts, and those facts are wrong. Less talking more listening sort of thing.

 

[nucky9]

Not being baited into that. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Yeah, I'm not going there.

But now you're talking medical genetics again, not eugenics. Individuals making these choices, while still debatable ethically, is not the same as eugenics.

 

[bomberfox]

Not being baited into that. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Yeah, I'm not going there.

Choice. Its no bait. The obvious problem with your understanding of eugenics is it is and has not ever really been an individual programme. You said how can that be a bad thing, i responded. Im pretty sure i know your answer but that is a logical question to what you posted.

 

[nucky9]

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

Yeah, it necessarily implies some have less value. Two parents making the decision for themselves is debatable ethically. Society as a whole deciding that for two parents is clearly wrong.

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

You are correct. You can never eliminate all genetic disorders through anything but pre-pregnancy gamete screening. And even there, 'all' isn't true, because things like cancers would still occur (though you could reduce their frequencies, and the early-onset flavours, generally).

 

[bomberfox]

Yeah, it necessarily implies some have less value. Two parents making the decision for themselves is debatable ethically. Society as a whole deciding that for two parents is clearly wrong.

You are correct. You can never eliminate all genetic disorders through anything but pre-pregnancy gamete screening. And even there, 'all' isn't true, because things like cancers would still occur (though you could reduce their frequencies, and the early-onset flavours, generally).

It also takes a misunderstanding of inheritable and heritability. They are not the same thing at all.

 

[Lursa]

But now you're talking medical genetics again, not eugenics. Individuals making these choices, while still debatable ethically, is not the same as eugenics.

I asked for a definition where participation must be mandated/cannot be voluntary.

 

[Lursa]

Choice. Its no bait. The obvious problem with your understanding of eugenics is it is and has not ever really been an individual programme. You said how can that be a bad thing, i responded.

It's not an 'individual' program. But again, where in the definition does it say participation cannot be voluntary?

 

[nucky9]

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

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

Possibly of interest to you as well, plenty of traits that are considered 'bad' on one context can actually be beneficial in others. Something like Down's isn't heritable, but plenty of traits that are have varying effects and can be either positive or negative depending on the environment. Even if it were possible to create a monoculture of humanity, it wouldn't be possible to maximize fitness for all environments.

 

[bomberfox]

It's not an 'individual' program. But again, where in the definition does it say participation cannot be voluntary?

Reality and the logic behind eugenics. The eugenicist wont get the desired outcome.

 

[bomberfox]

Possibly of interest to you as well, plenty of traits that are considered 'bad' on one context can actually be beneficial in others. Something like Down's isn't heritable, but plenty of traits that are have varying effects and can be either positive or negative depending on the environment. Even if it were possible to create a monoculture of humanity, it wouldn't be possible to maximize fitness for all environments.

Exactly.

 

[nucky9]

I asked for a definition where participation must be mandated/cannot be voluntary.

It can be voluntary and driven by incentive, but it needs to be driven by society as a whole. So, two parents electing to abort a pregnancy due to knowing the child will have a lethal or debilitating heritable disorder isn't eugenics, it's medical genetics. The government paying all pregnant women to prescreen for certain conditions and abort them if found might be, if the idea is to eliminate/reduce the affected alleles from the population.

 

[Lursa]

Reality and the logic behind eugenics. The eugenicist wont get the desired outcome.

Here's an example of "practical, applied eugenics." It's based on design, planned. Let's assume properly researched for future genetic implications.

Just clinics with legal programs offering specific genetic treatments. It doesn’t require govt mandate but if popular/successful/beneficial (not the same things) it would or could become prevalent in a population. Note that prevalent is not 100%. I use words carefully.

If you're going to object that this wouldnt be legal, depending on the genetic traits focused on, be specific why not?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

No, that's wrong. I'm not making a value statement here and I don't think the objectives nor the means of eugenics are desirable/possible to succeed. But that is the technical objective of the practice. "Desired trait" is exactly what it is, at the societal level - and that trait is one thought to be for the betterment of society as a whole by those who push the practice. That is what makes it seductive - see the OP, for instance. Again, though don't mistake me for approving of the objectives or means, because I don't for either, but is both the stated goal and thought process behind the practice. There are many many problems with the practice, both ethically and technically.

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."

Sure, but that isn't a societal thing unless you consider the pharaohs to be their own society.

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.

 

[bomberfox]

Here's an example of "practical, applied eugenics." It's based on design, planned. Let's assume properly researched for future genetic implications.

Just clinics with legal programs offering specific genetic treatments. It doesn’t require govt mandate but if popular/successful/beneficial (not the same things) it would or could become prevalent in a population. Note that prevalent is not 100%. I use words carefully.

If you're going to object that this wouldnt be legal, depending on the genetic traits focused on, be specific why not?

Genetic treatments, gene editing isnt the same thing. Given the history of eugenicists they arent going to wait for their designs to materialize without coersion or elimination if they deem necessary.

Social darwinism, the strong eat and the weak perish was always baked into the cake.

 

[Lursa]

It can be voluntary and driven by incentive, but it needs to be driven by society as a whole.

Exactly.

So, two parents electing to abort a pregnancy due to knowing the child will have a lethal or debilitating heritable disorder isn't eugenics, it's medical genetics. The government paying all pregnant women to prescreen for certain conditions and abort them if found might be, if the idea is to eliminate/reduce the affected alleles from the population.

Correct.

 

[Lursa]

Genetic treatments, gene editing isnt the same thing.

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.

 

[nucky9]

Here's an example of "practical, applied eugenics." It's based on design, planned. Let's assume properly researched for future genetic implications.

Just clinics with legal programs offering specific genetic treatments. It doesn’t require govt mandate but if popular/successful/beneficial (not the same things) it would or could become prevalent in a population. Note that prevalent is not 100%. I use words carefully.

If you're going to object that this wouldnt be legal, depending on the genetic traits focused on, be specific why not?

That's not eugenics, and it is already something that happens. Again, I think there is still an ethical debate to be had there, but it isn't societal-wide and it isn't being done to alter the population's gene pool.

 

[nucky9]

Exactly.



Correct.

Erm, ok? I'm pretty sure you've said eugenics doesn't have to be societally driven, but if I misunderstood you, then all good.

 

[Lursa]

That's not eugenics, and it is already something that happens. Again, I think there is still an ethical debate to be had there, but it isn't societal-wide and it isn't being done to alter the population's gene pool.

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

 

[Lursa]

Erm, ok? I'm pretty sure you've said eugenics doesn't have to be societally driven, but if I misunderstood you, then all good.

If so, I meant at the govt level. Even if it's society demanding it of the govt. Individuals do make a choice that can end up driving society (this is not the same thing as choosing re: medical genetics.) There are desired outcomes, design, etc.