Eugenics

[bomberfox]

Like we can get all philosophical here but when discussing an entire practice one must consider the underpinnings of it. To treat mere genetic defects as a communicable disease or even things that are wrong in society as a defect of genetics that must be bred out or eradicated. That is to think like a eugenicist in a nutshell.

 

[nucky9]

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.

Please don't tell me I'm wrong, when you are using terms like 'stock' to describe genetic diversity. Eugenics is the societal level identification of desired traits, and the subsequent attempts, again at the societal level, to select for those desired traits/select against undesired ones. This isn't debatable, this is a textbook definition.

Disallowing incestuous relationships hasn't been driven by any sort of wish to alter the gene pool of a society historically, as far as I'm aware. You can argue that these relationships should/shouldn't be allowed for whatever reason you want, but saying eugenics is bad, and disallowing incest is eugenics, thus disallowing incest is bad, is flawed logic, because it isn't eugenics. Assuming the incestuous partners were carriers of the alleles for X undesired traits (and assuming this was identified somehow), eugenics would forbid them from mating with anyone, not just each other, since the purpose is the elimination of the trait (which genetically, means the elimination for the allele that contributes to the trait), not just preventing affected individuals.

 

[nucky9]

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.

No, you are wrong. It is societally driven, and societally controlled. Selection based on various factors and random/non-random mating may lead to a change in the gene pool of a population, but they aren't eugenics. Words have meaning.

 

[bomberfox]

Please don't tell me I'm wrong, when you are using terms like 'stock' to describe genetic diversity. Eugenics is the societal level identification of desired traits, and the subsequent attempts, again at the societal level, to select for those desired traits/select against undesired ones. This isn't debatable, this is a textbook definition.

Disallowing incestuous relationships hasn't been driven by any sort of wish to alter the gene pool of a society historically, as far as I'm aware. You can argue that these relationships should/shouldn't be allowed for whatever reason you want, but saying eugenics is bad, and disallowing incest is eugenics, thus disallowing incest is bad, is flawed logic, because it isn't eugenics. Assuming the incestuous partners were carriers of the alleles for X undesired traits (and assuming this was identified somehow), eugenics would forbid them from mating with anyone, not just each other, since the purpose is the elimination of the trait (which genetically, means the elimination for the allele that contributes to the trait), not just preventing affected individuals.

Thats a great way to put it.

 

[nucky9]

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

Force doesn't have to be used, incentives can as well, but it doesn't change that it is something done at the scope of a society, rather than individuals.

 

[bomberfox]

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.

The only difference between a positive and a negative eugenicist is time. They all go negative eventually.

We can philosophize till the cows come home but in reality historical and political contexts always matter.

Reminds me of a certain poster that claimed to be a positive eugenicist then turned around to be a big advocate of genocide.

 

[nucky9]

The only difference between a positive and a negative eugenicist is time. They all go negative eventually.

We can philosophize till the cows come home but in reality historical and political contexts always matter.

Reminds me of a certain poster that claimed to be a positive eugenicist then turned around to be a big advocate of genocide.

There terms 'positive' and 'negative' don't have anything to do with any sort of value judgement of the methods. Negative eugenics is an attempt to control the gene pool of a population through negative selection (killing, sterilization etc.), and positive eugenics through positive selection (encouraging those with the desired traits to mate in some fashion) - it could still be forced, though I don't think there are examples of that, historically. Maybe the Mongols if you squint?

But yeah, no one is a 'positive' or 'negative' eugenicists. There is just the goal (alter the genetics of a population) and the methods one is willing/able to use to do so.

 

[bomberfox]

There terms 'positive' and 'negative' don't have anything to do with any sort of value judgement of the methods. Negative eugenics is an attempt to control the gene pool of a population through negative selection (killing, sterilization etc.), and positive eugenics through positive selection (encouraging those with the desired traits to mate in some fashion) - it could still be forced, though I don't think there are examples of that, historically. Maybe the Mongols if you squint?

But yeah, no one is a 'positive' or 'negative' eugenicists. There is just the goal (alter the genetics of a population) and the methods one is willing/able to use to do so.

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

 

[Lursa]

No, you are wrong. It is societally driven, and societally controlled. Selection based on various factors and random/non-random mating may lead to a change in the gene pool of a population, but they aren't eugenics. Words have meaning.

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.

 

[Lursa]

Force doesn't have to be used, incentives can as well, but it doesn't change that it is something done at the scope of a society, rather than individuals.

thanks for realizing your scope of the subject was too narrow.

 

[bomberfox]

thanks for realizing your scope of the subject was too narrow.

Its the reality of the practice Lursa.

 

[maquiscat]

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.

Arguable. The problem is that a positive trait can end up being tied to a negative trait, acknowledging the subjectivity of those terms, such that both get passed on. But if we could take out the negative, such as near sightedness (not saying it's tied to anything, but selecting a random trait) while leaving any positive it is tied with, shouldn't we try?

This goes against our belief that all human life is valuable and everyone should be saved.

You realize that this is hardly a universal belief, and at times it seems like it is a minority belief.

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.

We are in agreement here. This goes hand in hand with my point that despite eugenics being neutral itself, I have little faith in overall humanity in the current era to wield it ethically.

 

[maquiscat]

First, the state has an interest in incest laws. It is a medical fact that incest can lead to medical issues.

Please note that I stated that under the specific common argument presented, that supporting the incest laws would be hypocritical. It's also a medical fact that two unrelated people who carry the same recessive gene (of certain types) breeding can lead to medical issues and at the same risk.

 

[bomberfox]

Arguable. The problem is that a positive trait can end up being tied to a negative trait, acknowledging the subjectivity of those terms, such that both get passed on. But if we could take out the negative, such as near sightedness (not saying it's tied to anything, but selecting a random trait) while leaving any positive it is tied with, shouldn't we try?



You realize that this is hardly a universal belief, and at times it seems like it is a minority belief.



We are in agreement here. This goes hand in hand with my point that despite eugenics being neutral itself, I have little faith in overall humanity in the current era to wield it ethically.

Eugenics is not a neutral practice.

 

[bomberfox]

Please note that I stated that under the specific common argument presented, that supporting the incest laws would be hypocritical. It's also a medical fact that two unrelated people who carry the same recessive gene (of certain types) breeding can lead to medical issues and at the same risk.

Umm no… Thats not even the same thing and continuing to conflate them is giving those pseudoscientists way too much credit.

 

[maquiscat]

There are good tools, bad tools, and dangerous tools that I call 'weapons' when the intent supports such.

Which follows my main point. The same tool can fall under all the categories depending upon the intent. But the tool itself, outside of intent, is neutral. Even a weapons such as a gun is neutral without intent. For defense, it's a tool. For control or murder, it's a bad tool.

You would be absolutely correct about anti familial reproduction laws being applied eugenics . But lets not confuse current incest laws with the aforementioned. Its not incestuous consummated births alone that are banned. Its sexual behavior, including acts that do NOT, can NOT produce a fertilized egg. None of those laws give a rats ass if you use one, two or three forms of contraceptive and have an abortion provider on speed dial, and all of them that I know of ban oral sex, and anal sex. These laws are written because incest has other perceived negative social, cultural and individual impacts as well .

I agree completely. My point, as noted in a previous post was a direct counter to a specific argument, and not intended to address the overall reason behind the incest laws.

 

[maquiscat]

Umm no… Thats not even the same thing and continuing to conflate them is giving those pseudoscientists way too much credit.

Ok tell me how the argument against eugenics of "it is wrong to tell people who they can or cannot breed with" is not hypocritical with "we should stop incest breeding". Because that was the only argument that I was making the comparison on. And it is sadly common.

 

[bomberfox]

Ok tell me how the argument against eugenics of "it is wrong to tell people who they can or cannot breed with" is not hypocritical with "we should stop incest breeding". Because that was the only argument that I was making the comparison on. And it is sadly common.

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.

 

[watsup]

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.

We shouldn't be messing with this

And how are we “messing with this”?

 

[bomberfox]

To be a eugenicist one must believe certain peoples are poisoning the blood of our population by breeding and such poisoning must be corrected through population control.

 

[mrjurrs]

Please note that I stated that under the specific common argument presented, that supporting the incest laws would be hypocritical. It's also a medical fact that two unrelated people who carry the same recessive gene (of certain types) breeding can lead to medical issues and at the same risk.

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

 

[maquiscat]

I will merely repeat what I have posted elsewhere. Rape and force marriage are illegal and girls and women decide if they will date, have sex, or marry and with whom, just as boys and men do. It is absurd to think that their criteria do not include physical characteristics. Hence, no one will ever end eugenics broadly defined - the concept of the state controlling breeding is a specialized definition that would entail forcing sex and marriage on people, who would destroy a state that did that.

My contention is that because of what some have done in the past, that only those actions are being considered but are not the actual reality of eugenics. It is much like the swastika. There is, especially in the west, an association with the Nazi's (which is also true about eugenics), however, many Buddhist temples, especially in the east, continue to use the emblem, and Japan even used the symbol to mark the location of Buddhists temples on their maps. By the logic you are applying, Buddhists and the Japanese are Nazis because they still use this symbol. I do not argue that there are those who want to apply eugenics in a forced manner.

 

[maquiscat]

To be a eugenicist one must believe certain peoples are poisoning the blood of our population by breeding and such poisoning must be corrected through population control.

I disagree. To be a eugenicist one must believe that specific traits can be reinforced or weeded out through the use of specific breeding. For that matter, two different eugenicists can disagree over which traits are beneficial or detrimental, or neither. I hold that you are making a conflation of the unethical practices of those in the past with the generality of eugenics.

 

[maquiscat]

I suppose the concept of eugenics has become inextricably linked to government enforced or prohibited breeding and virulent bigotry thanks to its origins as a theory. Maybe we could call that "political eugenics?" I suppose in reality all lifeforms practice a form of biological eugenics, with humans being no different. Barring the rare paraphilias, we tend on average to prefer breeding with other opposite sex members of the species that we instinctively sense will improve our gene pool. We tend to be averse to breeding with humans who have obvious genetic defects. The "typical" sexually desirable human is one of the opposite sex that exhibits physical and behavioral traits that reflect healthy genes. The closer we can get to breeding with these types of people, the stronger our offspring will tend to be. That's not an evolutionary accident, nor is it a culturally determined or enforced social behavior. It is instinctive. It is certainly far from a universal truth that applies to each individual, as animals mate with other animals with plenty of genetic defects, and even other animals they cannot reproduce with, but it is an evolved impulse that the majority of members of a given species share. It's the reason those species still exist.

I have to disagree with the "biological eugenics" argument, and yes, we could maybe put that down under splitting hairs. I would say that eugenics would be completely different from say gene therapy, or direct altering of genes, in that eugenics is looking to accomplish the goals through breeding, not gene manipulation. Other than that, both methods are subject to the same chance of misuse and abuse. Also there are a ton of negative traits that do not improve the gene pool that we cannot even individually select against, because we can't really see them; diabetes, hereditary cancers, sickle cell, and many others that we can end up breeding with before they are ever known. And for that matter, breed with even when known. The worse ones are the males (along with some females) who don't care and just have sex because they want to, instead of taking responsibility for any offspring.

 

[maquiscat]

This topic is like many others, in that who decides who administers the program? At some point, someone will be compelled/forced to do something that they don’t want to do. In livestock, it’s called animal husbandry, humans have a problem being treated like livestock. We had a serious disagreement on this topic one-hundred an s=eighty some years back. We’re still feeling the effects.

Eugenics is not a program in and of itself. It can be incorporated into a program, but it doesn't have to be. I agree with you and stated in the OP, I would not trust many at all in the current era to not use force with regards to this.