One aspect of being an elite athlete is being singularly focused on winning and willing to put in the effort to achieve that goal. Elite athletes basically spend their whole lives training and competing. Even athletes who are genetic oddities (e.g. Michael Phelps) have to devote their lives to training. Superior ability alone won’t win against other athletes who are training full time. Most people lack that kind of focus. Even if someone could be a world record swimmer, they probably wouldn’t want to spend every day doing laps in the pool, along with all the other training and diet management that is necessary to be at the pinnacle of the sport. If the kids of elite athletes want to spend their day playing video games instead of training, then they won’t be great athletes regardless of their genetics.
There are (hopefully) no programs for breeding super athletes in the present day, but this may change, and probably will, in the next few centuries. A hundred years from now, I would expect newly conceived foetuses to be tested for a range of genetic illnesses, and either terminated or edited in some way to eliminate the expression of those illnesses. Two centuries from now zygotes may be optimised for certain desirable traits, possibly during the fertilisation stage.
Three centuries from now, I’d expect a large fraction of children to be born in artificial wombs, where the expression of desirable traits can be reliably monitored. I’m assuming, of course, that the technology for this sort of expression becomes mature at some point; there may be many unintended consequences and suffering during the development of this technology, and it may never happen for that reason.
Would that be eugenics? Perhaps so; but it strikes me that none of this ‘undesirable’ genetic heritage need be lost - any and all inheritable information could be stored, and if required these traits and associated codons could be reactivated at any time. So nothing would be lost, but the inherited traits of any particular individual might come from a wide range of ancestors.
Given sufficiently efficient storage, a human being could be gestated a million, or a billion, years from now, if this was ever deemed desirable. What would such a human be like? Perhaps they would be the best possible example of our species, or perhaps just an ordinary person, like you or me.
Absolutely, but how much is genetics, and how much is outside of the physical? I mean, Mikeala Shiffrin’s kids are going to live and breathe skiing for the most part, whether they want to or not, and they’re going to have a lot of access, equipment, etc. So they’ll have high expectations, but all the armament they need to live up to them. But I’d argue that just about any kid in that situation would be an excellent skier.
We actually already have some of that capability. It requires IVF, pre-implantation diagnosis, and some people have issues with discarding the unwanted zygotes. At this point it’s a matter of screening for genes/traits considered undesirable and never allowing those fertilized eggs to develop. It involves time, money, and effort but for those willing and able to do this it eliminates an undesirable trait from the family line permanently.
I’m not convinced we can do editing at this point, and there are moral implications to that as well.
I know. We were offered screening for our second child, but we chose not to screen, and our second child is now a PhD (in genetics). But routine screening is not yet part of a normal gestation.
I disagree; it is eugenics, it’s just that for obvious historical reasons most people don’t want to apply the term to anything non-evil or science* based. Especially Jews, also for obvious historical reasons.
*Eugenics as historically practiced was both evil and done totally unscientifically. For that matter it wasn’t even done empirically; we’ve had better practices for breeding animals than the eugenicists tried with humans for centuries. Almost as if the actual goal had nothing to do with making humanity genetically healthier…
I agree. Because eugenics is, as noted, usually motivated by evil and without use of proper science the word has a very bad reputation. Testing to prevent a child with Tay Sach’s is done using proper science. The goal is to prevent a child from experiencing a horrible illness and then dying very young. That is far from evil.
Well Jesus is another obvious one.
Touche
As well as voluntary encounters with outsiders. If a good Jewish woman takes a fancy to a Goy, her children will still be considered Jewish, under Jewish law.
I mean, Hitler himself wasn’t exactly tall and blond.
Megan Hughes and Magnus Bäckstedt (both cyclists) have two daughters, Elynor and Zoe (both cyclists.)
Mom represented Wales, so a very decent cyclist; Dad won Paris-Roubaix, which I would argue makes you an all-time great.
Elynor, the eldest daughter, is a very decent pro cyclist. Zoe is a phenom. In the 2022 Junior World Road Champs she basically solo’d the entire race (which should be impossible*), and won by a country mile. In her first year as a pro - aged barely 20 - racing at the highest level, she beat a world class field in a time trial.
Just sayin’.
j
* - Riding solo is far, far harder because you have to make your own hole in the air, whereas a chasing group can take turns on the front. So it’s a very stupid way to race BUT, on the other hand, you can bet that she made every Pro team director think: “She can do what??” Therefore financially very savvy, I would say.
I am not sure I buy that there is any such thing as a Jewish “look”. Absent other information, I would expect a Chinese Jew, a Ukrainian Jew, and an Eritrean Jew to more or less resemble other Chinese, Ukrainians, and Eritreans, respectively. Jews have a culture, not a breeding program.
In the United States, the majority of Jews are Ashkenazi (Eastern European) ethnicity, and the physical characteristics are what most people mean when they refer to a Jewish look. The ethnicity does have some fairly consistant characteristics, but still lots of variation. My ethnicity is 100% Ashkenazi and me and my siblings aren’t all that similiar in appearance.
Moderating:
I apologize for participating in the hijack, but perhaps we could get back to “breeding super athletes” and away from what Jews look like.
Guilty as charged.
One of the Book of Lists/Peoples’ Almanacs had a story about the German government encouraging German girls to seduce foreign athletes at the 1936 Olympics. A forest refuge was provided for the breedings, and the girls were instructed to ask the athlete for his identification (sort like a fraternity pin for the master race). The cost of her pregnancy and childbirth would be covered by the state, as long as the father was sufficiently ‘Aryan’.
I’ve never found confirmation of this story. Has anyone else heard it?
If the Shiffrin/Kilde kids have good parents, the parents will encourage their kids’ skiing only if the children themselves are interested.
The evil in eugenics comes from the decisions being made by people other than the parents.
As a rule, yes. People engage in informal “eugenics” all the time, whenever they decide whom to pursue as a partner for reasons partially or completely genetic. Or even just believed to be. Sometimes consciously, sometimes not. And there’s certainly some people who are “evil” about it; the racial purity types come to mind.
But the big historical evils of eugenics were mostly about third parties forcing their invariably malignant agenda on people who didn’t want it. Without the ability to force their beliefs on other most of them would have been reduced to the “crazy guy ranting on a streetcorner” level of relevance.