PDA

View Full Version : Are you in favour of some form of Eugenics?



edao
20-07-13, 21:42
Eugenics
The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a humanpopulation, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects orpresumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction bypersons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics) source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics?s=t)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I haven't seem much debate about this subject on the forum, or at least few threads on the subject.


Are you in favour of some form of Eugenics?

Maciamo
21-07-13, 11:35
Everybody practises eugenics, at least unconsciously. When we choose a sexual partner we look at their attractiveness, traits of character, intelligence, capabilities, physical or athletic abilities, and so on. These are all determined for a large part by our genome. So by choosing people with lots of qualities and shunning others we actively select positive genes. That is eugenics.

LeBrok
21-07-13, 17:43
Good point Maciamo. It looks like not only people but nature uses Eugenics all the time.

Next step for people will be to "upgrade" their DNA in labs to prevent diseases, make them healthier in general, more vital, look better and to be smarter. This process already started. There are tests for down syndrome or other mental disabilities in fetus stage, which prompts parents to do abortions of unwanted kids. Or sex selection in China and India.
In a decade or two popular will be to use viruses (already in clinical trials) to introduce new DNA strands to fix our imperfect bodies. Making kids in natural way will be deemed reckless and expensive for medical system.
The final eugenic phase happens when we start building kids from scratch before conception. Everybody in future will be smart, healthy and beautiful.

This form of eugenics is roots up. Choices belong to individual people. It is in contrast with hated and feared form, the top down method, set by government or vision of dictator and introduced over population by force.

Fire Haired
22-07-13, 23:58
i think we need to give people free choose and not go extreme and with the whole 1800's only the fittest are allowed to survive(it was a big part of racism towards non whites) that is evil in my opinion. We are not lab rats or animals we are humans we need to treat people equally. Now abortion i cant believe people accept i don't care if u kill the second the sperm its the egg that is a terrible murder ur stopping a human being from living.

Now u want all births to be in labrtories. if humans will dies if u dont do that sure but why not allow kids to be made and born the natural way we need to let humans live our natural life. not just put our sperms and eggs into a labritoroy. This will be agianst human nature. everyone to be perfect and governments conrolling everything we do and how our genetics are. that will cause huge sadness in people and kaos. Haven't u watched those movies about this type of stuff. we dont want to live like robots.

we should not kill other humans just because it will help our species. that is the reason Hitler wanted to kill Jews and other he thought the world would be better if everyone had blonde hair and blue eyes. we cant do the same thing as him even if we find a way to upgrade humans.

lets help the sickness and other stuff but lebrok u are starting to sound like a crazy scientists from the 1800's. we need to let humans life out our natural life's this honestly all sounds sick to me. I think some form of Eugenices can help but we cant go to far that will be controlling people and cause killings depression alot of things. we cant just become totally about survival we need to car about morals too it does not matter if it worsens the survival of the human race who talks like that anyways.

Fire Haired
22-07-13, 23:59
sorry messed up did not mean to make this

ElHorsto
23-07-13, 16:27
First we strife to overcome darwinism by progress. Then we create artifical darwinism in order to become more efficient for even more progress. I don't know if that makes much sense but it happens.

Anyway, I think eugenics is usually advocated by pragmatic people who want to reduce short-term costs more quickly than unspecific evolution can do. But in the long term eugenics increases risk for the whole species by ending in a optimization trap because of specialization. Like cell differentiation it leads to more uniformity and more dependence on other specialized units of the host environment. These cells might live a more "happy life" (not sure if they do), but when it's over than it's over for all. I don't know what is better.

LeBrok
23-07-13, 17:43
First we strife to overcome darwinism by progress. Then we create artifical darwinism in order to become more efficient for even more progress. I don't know if that makes much sense but it happens.

Anyway, I think eugenics is usually advocated by pragmatic people who want to reduce short-term costs more quickly than unspecific evolution can do. But in the long term eugenics increases risk for the whole species by ending in a optimization trap because of specialization. Like cell differentiation it leads to more uniformity and more dependence on other specialized units of the host environment. These cells might live a more "happy life" (not sure if they do), but when it's over than it's over for all. I don't know what is better.
Good point. Diversification is very important for evolution and life in general. Insures that some members of species survive when environment changes.
Although strength of people depends on power of brain. As long as we make smart people we should find the way to survive.

Fire Haired
24-07-13, 07:09
Good point. Diversification is very important for evolution and life in general. Insures that some members of species survive when environment changes.
Although strength of people depends on power of brain. As long as we make smart people we should find the way to survive.

diversity in humans is different black and whites are not nearly as different as different as beagles and bassethounds. the way different humans brain's work is exactly the same the way our bodies work is excatley the same. There are some tiny differences mainly facial features, skin color, body build, hair texture. This is because humans care about how we look more than animals which i think causes types of evolution.

so blacks mixing with whites wont change humans really at all. do half white half black people really work diff than whites and blacks they don't. we all are the same bread of human we are not that different i dont understand why when people say different dog breeds mixing is good then compare it to different races mixing.

i say dont kill people because they are inferior or not let them reproduce that is getting to close to what adolf hitler did where he wanted the whole world to be German and kill off all non perfect people who had deformtes and other things that is the same spirit that started abortion too.

edao
25-07-13, 23:02
I think it's hard to argue against 'faulty' genetic code being replaced/repaired. No one wishes a couple to have the life long burden of bringing up a child with a genetic or developmental problem.

The whole concept of designer babes is fascinating. It's hard to imagine how this will not become the norm, sexual reproduction I think will be seem as a bit backward, maybe 'hippish' like listening to the radio. Once one nation goes ahead and allows those who can afford it to create a new breed of 'super human' there will surely be no going back.

If China gave the go ahead for certain identified genes to be modifeid to allow greater cognitive ability, greater health etc are Americans and Europeans just going to allow a new breed of asian super men to take over the world? (ok that's the James Bond scenario :petrified:)

What will this new generation of 'Super Humans' mean for our society, will people CVs be labelled Alpha, Beta dependant on your genetic programming. Will adverts be tailored to our genetic coding (Minority Report).
Also will race as we know it disappear from the world as we look to create a Western ideal,
or will this new 'real' quantifiable hierarchy create new classes and subclasses. Perhaps the new American Dream will be to earn enough money to upgrade your offspring.

Google is a new power in the world due to the creation of a digital platform/technology that they dominate. What power might a dominant global genetics company have, the Samsung/Apple of designer reproduction?

LeBrok
26-07-13, 07:17
I think it's hard to argue against 'faulty' genetic code being replaced/repaired. No one wishes a couple to have the life long burden of bringing up a child with a genetic or developmental problem. Generally I agree with this, although there is a problem defining what is faulty gene. I would discard thousands of them, but FH wouldn't touch any, as they all came perfect from god.


The whole concept of designer babes is fascinating. It's hard to imagine how this will not become the norm, sexual reproduction I think will be seem as a bit backward, maybe 'hippish' like listening to the radio. Once one nation goes ahead and allows those who can afford it to create a new breed of 'super human' there will surely be no going back.Exactly may way of thinking. Who would risk making normal kid the natural way if others make geniuses in hospitals. By future standards even smart kids this days will be a moron in class of the future.


If China gave the go ahead for certain identified genes to be modifeid to allow greater cognitive ability, greater health etc are Americans and Europeans just going to allow a new breed of asian super men to take over the world? (ok that's the James Bond scenario :petrified:)I'm not sure if there will be competition between countries in the future. The biggest influence will be in the look. One generation of kids will be blond, next will be black. Like fashion with cloths, or popular names for kids changing every generation.
It might be the antidotum for same boring looking mixed race of the future, lol.



Perhaps the new American Dream will be to earn enough money to upgrade your offspring. Every family will take a second mortgage to have perfect kids?


Google is a new power in the world due to the creation of a digital platform/technology that they dominate. What power might a dominant global genetics company have, the Samsung/Apple of designer reproduction? or 23andMe?

ElHorsto
26-07-13, 13:44
Generally I agree with this, although there is a problem defining what is faulty gene. I would discard thousands of them, but FH wouldn't touch any, as they all came perfect from god.

Exactly may way of thinking. Who would risk making normal kid the natural way if others make geniuses in hospitals.


I also agree. It is because short-term risk/profit/cost always rules over long-term risk/profit/cost. I think this risk aversion is the root cause why most individuals (not only humans) tend to follow the crowd/trend leading to uniformity and swarms. Especially since most parents do care about their immediate offspring much more than dubious long-term species survival.



By future standards even smart kids this days will be a moron in class of the future.


I'm a bit more sceptic. Many geniusses were also a bit crazy, mentally ill or underperformers in school (Gödel, Einstein, Wittgenstein,...). Probably their trouble and pain pushed them to follow unorthodox paths preventing them from performing in school but making them excellent later. On the other hand I met a worrisome amount of really dumb people who excelled in school because literally no brains was in their way to function "normally" every day. They were not intelligent, but their intelligence was just present on demand. For really difficult problems this is not useful because a one-time mind blizzard in life-time could be enough to crack the problem.
Another minor point is that evolution uses randomness as part of the strategy. This would be missing in engineered eugenics. Even with artificial diversity, it would be still a biased diversity as opposed to randomness. But this problem is way too-long term oriented, so nobody will ever care about this risk.

That being said, I think enineering of individuals will eventually become part of culture for the same reason why uniformity and differentiation occurs in biology too (Ants, Bees, Organ tissues, Brave New World).



Every family will take a second mortgage to have perfect kids?


Only if they are designed stupid enough or designed to have an extraordinary desire for having kids. So many people decide not to have kids already today for economic reasons.

ElHorsto
27-07-13, 18:34
Google is a new power in the world due to the creation of a digital platform/technology that they dominate. What power might a dominant global genetics company have, the Samsung/Apple of designer reproduction?




or 23andMe?

Or Miinome?


...Through an open API, Miinome will combine genetic and environmental data mined from social networks like Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn and run that through their proprietary algorithm to come up with a profile of you that’s richer than anything that exists on the internet today.
...
His platform could help set the relative financial value for traits determining lactose intolerance, male-pattern baldness or risk for Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease...

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/03/miinome-genetic-marketplace/

Individualized selection is lucrative not only in advertisement I guess.

edao
27-07-13, 19:05
Just in case anyone lacked imagination :rolleyes2:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhpCu-ZJiu4

If you fully understood genetic information and that genetic information was largely responsible for behaviour does that mean you could control populations?

How much do genes control our behaviour? Eupedia (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25934-How-much-do-genes-control-our-behaviour)

Genes don't control our behaviour Paul Ehrlich (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2001/april4/ehrlichtalk-44.html)

Do our genes control us? source (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/do-our-genes-control-us-1305005.html)

LeBrok
28-07-13, 00:00
I'm a bit more sceptic. Many geniusses were also a bit crazy, mentally ill or underperformers in school (Gödel, Einstein, Wittgenstein,...). Probably their trouble and pain pushed them to follow unorthodox paths preventing them from performing in school but making them excellent later. On the other hand I met a worrisome amount of really dumb people who excelled in school because literally no brains was in their way to function "normally" every day. They were not intelligent, but their intelligence was just present on demand. For really difficult problems this is not useful because a one-time mind blizzard in life-time could be enough to crack the problem.

This might turn very true. When balance of things (not too much of anything) is essential for healthy individuals and ultimately society, too much of genius might turn fatal for them and future of humankind. Probably suicidal or crazy tendencies in future kids will lead to tweaking DNA for the best balance. To make sure people are not only smart and beautiful, but also happy, optimistic and caring for families.



Another minor point is that evolution uses randomness as part of the strategy. This would be missing in engineered eugenics. Even with artificial diversity, it would be still a biased diversity as opposed to randomness. But this problem is way too-long term oriented, so nobody will ever care about this risk.
There are always secondary mutations which happen during cell divisions. They will be studded and implemented if deemed positive for people. Otherwise there is always human creativity in action or crazy scientists.


That being said, I think enineering of individuals will eventually become part of culture for the same reason why uniformity and differentiation occurs in biology too (Ants, Bees, Organ tissues, Brave New World).
Assuming that humankind can survive few million years, it is very scary to think where they may end up using eugenics.
Although what else they might do with all the free time when robots do all the work and everything is plentiful?






Only if they are designed stupid enough or designed to have an extraordinary desire for having kids. So many people decide not to have kids already today for economic reasons.
I think it is already happening since introduction of birth control pills. First time in human history mostly wanted kids are born, in contrast with the past when kids were popping up like daisies every time people had sex. We can assume that parents who really love kids and having kids will have more kids than others who don't have any desire for kids. Assuming that there is a gene or set of genes which influence this behaviour, in few generations we will have more people (with these genes) who will have kids and more kids than today's average. If I'm right, in few generations positive population growth will return to developed countries. Not necessary a good thing in already heavily populated world. In this case some limits on having kids will be implemented in the future.

Cambrius (The Red)
01-08-13, 18:56
No. The concept is immoral at a most fundamental level - particularly if it's a legally enforceable type of program.

edao
01-08-13, 23:39
No. The concept is immoral at a most fundamental level - particularly if it's a legally enforceable type of program.


What is immoral about stopping a child being born with down syndrome or giving people a longer healthier life?:thinking:

POLITICALLY CORRECT EUGENICS (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbtdag/bioethics/writings/eugenics.html)


ABSTRACT. As knowledge of biology grows, so does our power to determine our biological nature by means of genetics. The disastrous character of eugenics has resulted in a certain reluctance to face the problem of what to do with this power. Here eugenics is re-examined in the light of the recently published Eugenics and the Welfare State (Broberg and Roll-Hansen eds.). It is argued that eugenics is not only still with us, but desirable, in the revamped form of a libertarian reform eugenics. This book and The Perfect Baby by bioethicist Glenn McGee are at opposite poles of the debate about whether moral knowledge may be moulded by scientific knowledge. It is argued that bioethical expertise is possible by virtue of the power of knowledge derived from science to inform moral conceptions of the world.