Is there any defensible value to "eugenics" in this day and age?

[BrainGlutton]

Eugenics. On the one hand, it always and fairly calls the Nazis to mind nowadays. On the other hand, we've all seen Idiocracy. On the gripping hand, it always seems just about impossible, even now, to disentangle the whole thing from racism.

IQ-related eugenics might be a solution to a nonproblem anyway, see the Flynn Effect. And genetic engineering might render the whole thing moot within our lifetimes -- no need to "cull" the "inferior" if we can tweak their offspring's DNA just a bit. They'll still be the same color and everything else, just smarter and healthier than they might have been otherwise.

And then there's the argument that it is simply hubristic to presume we know what heredity is best for our descendants anyway. Maybe, in terms of long-term survival and thriving of the human race, high IQ isn't quite all it's cracked up to be. There's even controversy over what IQ measures, or whether it measures anything important or relevant.

As well as whether environment plays a greater role than heredity. I read in The Bell Curve Wars that a lot of Third-World countries have raised their average IQ a full standard deviation since WWII, without any changes in their gene-pools -- it's all down to improved public education, health, sanitation and nutrition. Those are more sensible things to focus on, aren't they?

Still, heredity is a real thing, and it is simply a Bad Thing for kids to be born with hereditary mental retardation and/or physical/health defects if that is preventable.

For my part, I've been going back and forth on this question for decades. You can tell. On balance, I come down on the anti- side.

[Broomstick]

The only kind of eugenics I'd favor is voluntary - that is, informing people as much as possible so they can choose to either reproduce or not on their own. It's not unknown for people who know they carry a genetic disease to opt not to have children, or for carriers to take steps to avoid conceiving affected children. On the other hand, if people want to roll the dice they can - if they can convince someone else to also take that chance (though obviously not everyone is going to disclose such issues, either).

I am opposed to any form of coercion, involuntary sterilization, or the like. It was too grossly abused in the past, I just don't trust anyone to have that power over other people.

OK, I suppose I'm giving parents the option of choosing to abort a fetus or not... but that decision only affects one family, as opposed to a doctor or a committee making that decision for hundreds or even thousands of others. It limits the downsides and the potential damage.

[Der Trihs]

In the abstract eugenics is a great idea that could eliminate a great deal of suffering, and it isn't hard to think of ethical ways to implement it; for example, pay people with serious genetic defects not to have children. But history demonstrates that when government gets involved that simply isn't what happens. Eugenics works fine on an individual level, and is practiced by plenty of people on that level with no harm*, even though they seldom call it by that word. But governments have a strong historical tendency to go nuts when they get involved. Personally I hope that that problem is something that can at least partly eliminated by social progress, because eventually as human genetic engineering become practical the government is going to have to step in to prevent the kinds of abuse that unregulated genetic engineering would involve.


*Like people with nasty recessive genes choosing to not have children, or not having children with anyone with the same recessive.

[New Deal Democrat]

I can think of two reasons: over population, computer technology reduces the value of work that can be done by those of below average intelligence.

At the very least we should replace Aid to Families with Dependent Children with free abortion on demand.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

The only kind of eugenics I'd favor is voluntary - that is, informing people as much as possible so they can choose to either reproduce or not on their own.

Well, yes, that's another important thing, of course. I say things like "no need to 'cull' the 'inferior' if we can tweak their offspring's DNA just a bit," but who's "we"? Trusting any government with that kind of call raises obvious alarms -- eugenic policy, if accepted in principle, will be shaped by political pressures, which are not always rational to say the least. OTOH, if eugenics, whether by "culling" or 'tweaking," is desirable, then only a state could do it effectively at all. Leaving it to the free market could be far worse than banning it outright . . . we would eventually end up with an elite class whose parents could afford the gene-engineering procedures, and who are, as a result, not only socially and economically, but biologically superior to the rest of us. That is an even more disturbing thought than any Nazi nightmare.

[Farmer Jane]

This was one of my very first topics on the Dope. I don't know if it is bad form to quote myself from a year ago, but I shall:

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

What about government sponsored IVF treatments?
Designer babies? Deaf designer babies?
Selective abortion? (Aborting fetuses with Down's, for example?)
Restricting marriage between two cognitively disabled people?
Surgically castrating sex offenders?
Human cloning?
Stem cell research?



And, less seriously: Animal breeding?


Science can be a bitch.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

This was one of my very first topics on the Dope. I don't know if it is bad form to quote myself from a year ago, but I shall:

Hard to tell from that whether you're for it or agin' it.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

I can think of two reasons: over population, computer technology reduces the value of work that can be done by those of below average intelligence.

At the very least we should replace Aid to Families with Dependent Children with free abortion on demand.

I thought you were pro-life.

Surgically castrating sex offenders?

That isn't eugenics because its aim isn't to prevent sex offenders from producing children but rather to prevent sexual assaults.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

OTOH, if eugenics, whether by "culling" or 'tweaking," is desirable, then only a state could do it effectively at all. Leaving it to the free market could be far worse than banning it outright . . . we would eventually end up with an elite class whose parents could afford the gene-engineering procedures, and who are, as a result, not only socially and economically, but biologically superior to the rest of us.

I find that less disturbing than the idea of people genetically engineering their children to, say, be religious fanatics or compulsively conservative. Such attitudes as religiosity and conservatism do seem to have genetic components; and it seems logical to me that genetic engineering could intensify that inborn component from a tendency into a compulsion. What happens to society when, say, a third or more of the population is composed of compulsive religious fanatics? Or what happens if some faction decides girls should be genetically engineered to be stupid and submissive?

There's definitely things I want the government to be able to step in about and say "no, you can't do that".

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

I find that less disturbing than the idea of people genetically engineering their children to, say, be religious fanatics or compulsively conservative. Such attitudes as religiosity and conservatism do seem to have genetic components; and it seems logical to me that genetic engineering could intensify that inborn component from a tendency into a compulsion. What happens to society when, say, a third or more of the population is composed of compulsive religious fanatics? Or what happens if some faction decides girls should be genetically engineered to be stupid and submissive?

There's definitely things I want the government to be able to step in about and say "no, you can't do that".

Of course most religious conservatives don't support genetic engineering so I don't think you need to worry. And would you object to people making their children compulsively socialist or generating nyphomaniacs?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

I find that less disturbing than the idea of people genetically engineering their children to, say, be religious fanatics or compulsively conservative. Such attitudes as religiosity and conservatism do seem to have genetic components . . .

Cite? (There's some proof they might have biological components, but that does not necessarily mean hereditary/genetic.)

[florez]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

And would you object to people making their children compulsively socialist or generating nyphomaniacs?

I might consider the socialist part OK, but nymphomania, now that could be trouble.

[jackdavinci]

I like the current model, of which eugenics plays a minor but important role.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by jackdavinci

I like the current model, of which eugenics plays a minor but important role.

How is eugenics being practiced even in a minor way now?

[Little Nemo]

I'll go out on a limb and say yes, you can defend eugenics to a certain extent. There are genetic conditions that are generally recognized as undesirable and I think it's reasonable to try to prevent their spread.

But here's the limits on what's acceptable:

1. The ends do not justify the means. If your program is using coercion or force, it's wrong. You can encourage people to have or not have children. But you have to ultimately allow people to make their own decisions.

2. Stick with science. Things like poverty and criminal behavior and immorality are not genetic conditions. And nobody has ever proven one type of appearance is better than any other. And even for things like intelligence that might have some genetic basis, err on the side of caution and make sure what you're seeing has a real genetic cause rather than a social one.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

How is eugenics being practiced even in a minor way now?

Simple natural selection-hence why I shall share the same fate as Sir Isaac Newton and Samuel Tilden.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Simple natural selection-hence why I shall share the same fate as Sir Isaac Newton and Samuel Tilden.

What, to die a childless bachelor at a ripe old age? I see neither "eugenics" nor "natural selection" at work there. And "natural selection" is practically the antonym of "eugenics," the whole point of which is not to just let nature take its course. Eugenics is artificial selection, like humans have been practicing on domesticated plants and animals since the dawn of agriculture and pastoralism.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

At the very least we should replace Aid to Families with Dependent Children with free abortion on demand.

AFDC was eliminated in the mid-90's. Please try to keep up. Regrettably, it was not replaced with abortion on demand, we got Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF, which is both less generous and has a lifetime limit of 5 years.

[even sven]

Is there any previous generation whom you would entrust to determine the make up of the human genome?

Yeah, me neither. Even if it wasn't a horrible idea, we don't know nearly enough to be able to make good decisions.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

How is eugenics being practiced even in a minor way now?

If an individual decides their genes are a problem and chooses not to reproduce that is eugenics on an individual level. To some degree, this has been practiced for a long time.

There are also some subgroups who do this. One group with a high rate of Tay Sachs carriers has chosen to get everyone tested and discourages marriage between carriers. I'll also note they've taken steps to safeguard privacy as well, but I don't want to sidetrack this thread with the details.

There are couples where both are carriers of a bad recessive gene who opt for IVF reproduction because they can examine the embryos and not implant those afflicted while keeping the ones that aren't.

An important note is that it is not governments doing these things, and no one in these circumstances is forced to forego reproduction. It's largely individuals seeking to maximize their odds of getting healthy children, not making designer babies.

[The Man In Black]

Khaaaaaan!

[Tristan]

I could see, at some point, it becoming "fashionable" to modify ones offspring to get a pre-determined phenotype. Hell, we do it to ourselves all the time, just not at a genetic level.

I can see the salon of the future, with it's clean room where a person can come in, get a massage while their genes are sequenced, then they get the IV drip for a few hours while they relax and get a mani-pedi.

Within weeks of the spa treatment and genetic infusion, their hair has begun growing in blond and curly, instead of brown and straight. The eyes have started shifting from green to blue. Their skin tone darkens naturally to a golden brown (or pales to the same).

If we can control things to that level, there will be some court battles, I am sure, to try to figure out where the line is. What if Joe Average guy saves up and wants to get his genes altered to make him taller, or more muscular? Is that ok? How about if someone wants bony spurs projecting out of their body? Ears that resemble cat ears? A tail? Vision that ranges into the Infrared, or UV (which would allow someone in certain circumstances to see through clothing, sort of)?

[Spit]

Originally Posted by Tristan

I could see, at some point, it becoming "fashionable" to modify ones offspring to get a pre-determined phenotype. Hell, we do it to ourselves all the time, just not at a genetic level.

I was part of an airport bar discussion about this last week- It will be one thing when we can changes the genetics of our offspring, but at first (Such as now) we will only be able to tell what problems the offspring will have, not how to fix it.

So if you found out your child was going to have a terrible genetic abnormality, would you go ahead an abort the fetus? What if being a pedophile is determined to be a genetic quirk? Being gay? Should there be laws stating that is okay to terminate one fetus, but not the other? How the hell do you write those?

[Ashley Pomeroy]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

... improved public education, health, sanitation and nutrition. Those are more sensible things to focus on, aren't they?

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

My inarguable counter-argument to eugenics is this: horses have been selectively bred since the beginning of human history, thousands of years, and yet they're still stupid. How many symphonies have horses written? None. Not even bad symphonies - no symphonies at all. Was Carl Sagan a horse? No, he was not. And neither was Mozart. Can horses drive cars? They cannot.

Yeah, I know what you're going to say. Horses don't need to drive cars, they can just run wherever they want because they're fast. You think you're smart, smarty-pants, so answer this; what if they want to drive underwater? Eh? Submarines, that's what I'm talking about. You ever seen a horse on a submarine? Eh? Have you? Eh?

CASE CLOSED.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Ashley Pomeroy

My inarguable counter-argument to eugenics is this: horses have been selectively bred since the beginning of human history, thousands of years, and yet they're still stupid.

Is this a whoosh? Horses have not been bred for intelligence, after all.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Tristan

I could see, at some point, it becoming "fashionable" to modify ones offspring to get a pre-determined phenotype. Hell, we do it to ourselves all the time, just not at a genetic level.

I can see the salon of the future, with it's clean room where a person can come in, get a massage while their genes are sequenced, then they get the IV drip for a few hours while they relax and get a mani-pedi.

Within weeks of the spa treatment and genetic infusion, their hair has begun growing in blond and curly, instead of brown and straight. The eyes have started shifting from green to blue. Their skin tone darkens naturally to a golden brown (or pales to the same).

If we can control things to that level, there will be some court battles, I am sure, to try to figure out where the line is. What if Joe Average guy saves up and wants to get his genes altered to make him taller, or more muscular? Is that ok? How about if someone wants bony spurs projecting out of their body? Ears that resemble cat ears? A tail? Vision that ranges into the Infrared, or UV (which would allow someone in certain circumstances to see through clothing, sort of)?

What? Oh, there's no debate there at all. It would be ontologically uberkewl.

If it were possible. I don't think anybody even has a theoretical approach in mind (yet) for genetically/phenotypically retrofitting an adult organism. If we have gene-engineering and you want blonde hair for yourself, not your kid, there's still no technology for that but hydrogen peroxide.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Eugenics' goal is to improve the genetic composition of a population. It is indefensible because its aims do not reflect what we actually know about the maintenance of genetic variation in a population. It therefore restricts freedom of individuals to associate and make decisions about their bodies while being doomed to fail at the intended goal.

All discussions of optimizing specific decisions to reproduce are not eugenics. It's simple assortative mating. It's what we've been doing since sexual reproduction first evolved. The only difference now is that the couples doing the reproduction now have some tools to exert more control of the product of these matings. One couple's baby is not a population. One couple's decision to reproduce or not is not a social policy. Individual decisions on reproduction are not eugenics.

[BrainGlutton]

Uh, my name is, uh, Eugene . . .

[Freudian Slit]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Of course most religious conservatives don't support genetic engineering so I don't think you need to worry. And would you object to people making their children compulsively socialist or generating nyphomaniacs?

Considering we don't even recognize nymphomania as a disorder anymore, it would be pretty hard to breed for it.

[drewtwo99]

As a public school teacher I've joked about the idea of a "parenting license" which brushes on some of the issues you're bringing up. I think that while there are probably genetic components to intelligence and overall mental capabilities, a far more important factor is parental upbringing. If we could somehow ensure that all parents were fit to be good parents and license them appropriately, I think it'd eliminate or reduce drastically the problems we're talking about.

Of course, how to implement such a system fairly seems impossible. And also, we have driver's licenses but we still have hundreds of thousands of accidents per year and billions of dollars of damage and health claims, so, a licensing system might not work all that well in the long run.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

Considering we don't even recognize nymphomania as a disorder anymore, it would be pretty hard to breed for it.

Oh, don't be such a downer! There's always hope! For Science!

[embleerrah]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

And then there's the argument that it is simply hubristic to presume we know what heredity is best for our descendants anyway. Maybe, in terms of long-term survival and thriving of the human race, high IQ isn't quite all it's cracked up to be. There's even controversy over what IQ measures, or whether it measures anything important or relevant.

...and to repeat my post on another thread. It is also hubris to assume that we know what breeding will produce the desired outcomes. Genetics is still pretty much a closed shop to us in spite of our discoveries. Breeding intelligent people may also risk an increase in numbers of autistic children.

http://www.nature.com/news/specials/autism/index.html

So we then not only have to consider selective breeding, but also embryo selection/culling.

It all gets a bit morally tortured, in my opinion.

[jackdavinci]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

How is eugenics being practiced even in a minor way now?

There's currently genetic testing available for both IVF and conventional pregnancies (and for the parents), and no ban on the use of this information. And of course general physical attraction. So people have the choice to practice eugenics consciously or subconsciously at the level of the individual, which is where it makes the most sense ethically.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

How is eugenics being practiced even in a minor way now?

You have sex with hot people/people who appeal to you (and, whether you know it or not, appeal to your genes).

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Simple natural selection-hence why I shall share the same fate as Sir Isaac Newton

You're gonna get smacked in the head by falling apples ? That's not genetic, I don't think. It might end up being natural selection if the apple is *really* big I suppose.

[florez]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

You have sex with hot people/people who appeal to you (and, whether you know it or not, appeal to your genes).

My late husband was tall, native, dark, intelligent and we had a beautiful daughter together who is tall, native, dark, intelligent.

I must have been practicing eugenics in a way, because I decided not to marry my first love who was short, and decided in favor of the tall guy.

I think at some level I really did want to put some height into our family tree, but I was also very much attracted to and in love with my husband

[YogSosoth]

I don't favor eugenics because I don't want a lot of perfect looking people running around. More competition for me. I really see no reason why humanity, all 6+ billion of us, need to be healthy, hot, supermen and women. With ugly and weak people around, a lot of us look better by comparison.

Oh, and too Nazi-ish in my opinion. No way to prevent horrible abuses. But my priority is less competition.

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

Simple natural selection-hence why I shall share the same fate as Sir Isaac Newton and Samuel Tilden.

Note to Qin: Stay in decent shape, strive to look & dress your best, and watch for the unspectacular, smart "nerdy" girls. Those were my three big mistakes when I was your age. I was fat & slovenly then & things have not improved except for the slovenly part, and I was after the high status hotties. But the teen movies are right in one thing- behind the armloads of books, the bangs or braids, & the big glasses, there are plenty of hotties incognito.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

I can think of two reasons: over population, computer technology reduces the value of work that can be done by those of below average intelligence.

At the very least we should replace Aid to Families with Dependent Children with free abortion on demand.

Why do we need to replace welfare with free abortions? Why can't we do both? After all, according to your theories, a free abortion is tantamount to saving a lifetime of welfare payments.

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

I thought you were pro-life.

AFAICT, aside from his theories on race, he is generally a big government socialist.

Originally Posted by FriarTed

Note to Qin: Stay in decent shape, strive to look & dress your best, and watch for the unspectacular, smart "nerdy" girls. Those were my three big mistakes when I was your age. I was fat & slovenly then & things have not improved except for the slovenly part, and I was after the high status hotties. But the teen movies are right in one thing- behind the armloads of books, the bangs or braids, & the big glasses, there are plenty of hotties incognito.

The problem with high chasing hotties in high school is that they frequently don't turn out to be so hot later on in life. Date in high school to have fun not find your life partner but do date. I've seen too many guys become socially stunted by not dating enough (or at all) in high school.

[BrainGlutton]

RationalWiki on eugenics:

The absurdity of eugenics

Eugenics is not a valid science (just in case the pseudoscience sidebar didn't tip you off). The most obvious flaw with eugenics is that it conflates phenotypical traits with genotypical traits. Even seemingly "fit" humans (or any species) may carry recessive traits that don't exhibit themselves but will be passed on.

While eugenics targeted more than just the "inferior" races (e.g., lower classes, the "feeble-minded," and other assorted and alleged riff-raff), racial purity was very often an element in eugenecist works. Eugenics drew heavily from various racist and racialist tracts of the period. This concept of "purity" is also flawed in that it creates many of the same problems as inbreeding — a loss of biodiversity can in fact lead to increased susceptibility to disease.

The extreme reductionism of eugenics often crossed into what is now comical territory. Nearly every social behavior, including things such as "pauperism" and the vaguely defined "feeble-mindedness," could be traced back to a single gene according to eugenecists. Many works of eugenics recall the similar trend evident in phrenology (indeed, there was some overlap between eugenics and phrenology).[17]

The development of the field of epigenetics, i.e. heritable environmental factors in genetic expression that occur without change to underlying DNA structures, poses further problems for eugenics.

While eugenics gained widespread support in the early 20th century even within the scientific community of a number of nations, there was also strong opposition during this period.[18] The biologist Raymond Pearl, for example, once a supporter of the movement, turned against it in the late 1920s.[19] The geneticist Lancelot Hogben argued that eugenics relied on a false dichotomy of "nature vs. nurture" and that it infected science with political value judgments.[20] Clarence Darrow famously denounced it as a "cult."[21] The Carnegie Institute, which initially funded the Eugenics Record Office, withdrew its funding after a review of its research, leading to its closing in 1939.[22]

Stephen J. Gould was strongly opposed to eugenics. He wrote extensively on the topic, including his treatment on intelligence in The Mismeasure of Man.

<snip>

17.↑ VL Hilts. Obeying the laws of hereditary descent: phrenological views on inheritance and eugenics. J Hist Behav Sci. 1982 Jan;18(1):62-77.
18.↑ GE Allen. Eugenics and modern biology: critiques of eugenics, 1910-1945. Ann Hum Genet. 2011 May;75(3):314-25.
19.↑ Raymond Pearl's "Mingled Mess", Johns Hopkins Magazine
20.↑ Sahotra Sarkar. Lancelot Hogben, 1895-1975. Genetics, 142, 655-660 (March, 1996)
21.↑ "The Eugenics Cult," in Closing Arguments: Clarence Darrow on Religion, Law, and Society, ed. S.T. Joshi. [3] Reprint in Thoughts in a Haystack.
22.↑ Eugenics in New York, University of Vermont

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Eugenics. On the one hand, it always and fairly calls the Nazis to mind nowadays. On the other hand, we've all seen Idiocracy. On the gripping hand, it always seems just about impossible, even now, to disentangle the whole thing from racism.

IQ-related eugenics might be a solution to a nonproblem anyway, see the Flynn Effect. And genetic engineering might render the whole thing moot within our lifetimes -- no need to "cull" the "inferior" if we can tweak their offspring's DNA just a bit. They'll still be the same color and everything else, just smarter and healthier than they might have been otherwise.

And then there's the argument that it is simply hubristic to presume we know what heredity is best for our descendants anyway. Maybe, in terms of long-term survival and thriving of the human race, high IQ isn't quite all it's cracked up to be. There's even controversy over what IQ measures, or whether it measures anything important or relevant.

As well as whether environment plays a greater role than heredity. I read in The Bell Curve Wars that a lot of Third-World countries have raised their average IQ a full standard deviation since WWII, without any changes in their gene-pools -- it's all down to improved public education, health, sanitation and nutrition. Those are more sensible things to focus on, aren't they?

Still, heredity is a real thing, and it is simply a Bad Thing for kids to be born with hereditary mental retardation and/or physical/health defects if that is preventable.

For my part, I've been going back and forth on this question for decades. You can tell. On balance, I come down on the anti- side.

You might find this e-book of interest. It discusses the history of eugenics in the US and elsewhere and possible future developments.

Evolutionary selection has been radically relaxed in the human species as a result of the development of civilization, science in general, and medicine in particular. While these advances have hugely benefited current populations, they have to a significant degree released the species from the biological process which created it and maintains its viability. Formerly, natural selection took place largely as a result of differential mortality, but now that most people survive well beyond their child bearing years, selection is determined largely by differential fertility. Aside from genetic illnesses, this new selection is also characterized by a negative correlation between fertility and intelligence–the core of eugenic concern for over a century.

Eugenics views itself as the fourth leg of the chair of civilization, the other three being a) a thrifty expenditure of natural resources, b) mitigation of environmental pollution, and c) maintenance of a human population not exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity. Eugenics, which can be thought of as human ecology, is thus part and parcel of the environmental movement. Humanity is defined, not as the totality of the currently living population, but as the number of people who will potentially ever live. This is a book about the struggle for human rights and parental responsibility.

John Glad is a retired professor of Russian studies, having taught at Rutgers University, the University of Chicago, the University of Iowa, and the University of Maryland. He is also the former Director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, D.C. A Guggenheim grant recipient, he is the author, editor, or translator of twenty books, some of which have been honored in the American Book Awards. Future Human Evolution is part of his long-standing work on behalf of human rights, in this case of future generations.

[Alessan]

I'm currently translating this legal document. In a nutshell, the parents of the plaintiff, who has cystic fibrosis, are suing their doctor for not referring them to genetic testing during the pregnancy. The parents are first cousins, and their are a disproportionately high number of CF patients in their village.

Now, let me ask you - if the Ministry of Health sent some people to their village to try to convince people to stop marrying family members, would that be eugenics?

[Shakester]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

On the other hand, we've all seen Idiocracy.

The problem with Idiocracy is that it's taken way too seriously. It's a joke premise; intelligence isn't directly heritable. Plenty of smart people are born to dumb parents, and plenty of dumb people are born to smart parents.

Look up as many geniuses as you wish on Wikipedia, in whatever fields you like. The great majority of them came from average parents and created average children.

Family has a greater effect, in that a family that values learning encourages it, but even so, it absolutely does not always take. Yes, there are multi-generational families of idiots, and of clever people, but there are also many many stories of gifted people coming from average or below-average families. And every family has a dumbarse or two.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Alessan

I'm currently translating this legal document. In a nutshell, the parents of the plaintiff, who has cystic fibrosis, are suing their doctor for not referring them to genetic testing during the pregnancy. The parents are first cousins, and their are a disproportionately high number of CF patients in their village.

Now, let me ask you - if the Ministry of Health sent some people to their village to try to convince people to stop marrying family members, would that be eugenics?

The problem is it wouldn't work. It would actually increase the frequency of the gene in subsequent generations.

Replace that with a mandate that they only can reproduce through IVF and can only implant embryos tested to be homozygous for a normal CFTR gene and then you would drive down the frequency of the gene in the population.

[Alessan]

What if the government encourages them to undergo genetic testing and terminate pregnancies where the fetus is discovered to be a CF gene carrier?

[Iggy]

Yes, they would have to effectively remove a certain proportion of the "bad" version of the gene from the gene pool. That could happen by encouraging/forcing an abortion of a CF carrier.

The math works. The morality doesn't.


The Ashkenazi Jews have a high incidence of carrying the Tay-Sachs gene. Within their communities genetic testing is encouraged. Carriers are generally discouraged from marrying. The result is that fewer Tay-Sachs babies are born and more carriers are born than would be without the genetic testing.

In the next generation there are more carriers, who again are encouraged not to marry other carriers, and so on.

Over time the frequency of the bad allele increases.

[AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet]

On the other hand, as a person with a "severe" genetic disorder (let me put it this way. The syndrome I have, if you looked it up in a medical textbook it would describe me as one of those kids who is in a wheelchair with a communication board and about ten billion medical problems) I do think that there needs to be some sort of preventive system to make sure that profound and degenerate familial genetic conditions are not passed on. Some of the conditions are just......horrififc ...and you look at the family sites, and they're gushing over a kid who can't even reconize their own mother....Granted that sort of thing is really rare. ....but still........maybe a good idea might be to have a very strict (to qualify you'd have to be a carrier of something profound or degenerate) program where parents who are carriers could get sterilized and have assitace with adoption.

[Der Trihs]

Given just how badly attempts at eugenics have worked in the past, and how slow the beneficial affects of any selective breeding of humans would be to manifest even if we could pull it off ethically, it makes more sense to just wait until genetic engineering can solve genetic defects. No need for sterilizing people, or killing them, or telling them who they can have children with; just replace the bad genes. We are quite a ways away from being able to do that, but breeding defective genes out of humanity would be a generations-long project, and much less likely to work. Most likely even if we started to pull it off genetic engineering would make it obsolete before it really accomplished much.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Yes, they would have to effectively remove a certain proportion of the "bad" version of the gene from the gene pool. That could happen by encouraging/forcing an abortion of a CF carrier.

The math works. The morality doesn't.

I don't see how morality is a factor if everything is done voluntarily.

That's not the question, though. What I asked was: is this eugenics?

[Broomstick]

Yes. It is the consciously controlled breeding of humans with the intent of eliminating bad genes and/or promoting desirable ones. The fact it is done voluntarily on an individual (or couple) basis does not mean it's something else.

[Kearsen]

Originally Posted by even sven

Is there any previous generation whom you would entrust to determine the make up of the human genome?

Yeah, me neither. Even if it wasn't a horrible idea, we don't know nearly enough to be able to make good decisions.

We could all start over from Brad Pitt and Anjelina Jolie.