# Eugenics: Comic-book science or mankind's worst threat?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [June 22, 2000, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168 "2000-06-22T03:32:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 17\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Commander\_Fortune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Commander\_Fortune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commander_Fortune)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/21 "2000-06-23T08:37:51Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> BTW, I don’t think storage of human embryos is legal in any civilized country. Sperm and ova is something else. (I’m ready to be corrected on this.)

In fact, Norm, it’s common.

[http://www.advancedfertility.com/cryotank.htm+](http://www.advancedfertility.com/cryotank.htm+)  
[http://www.midsouthfertility.com/cryopreservation\_of\_embryos.htm](http://www.midsouthfertility.com/cryopreservation_of_embryos.htm)  
[http://www.ein.org/freezing.htm](http://www.ein.org/freezing.htm)

Once you’ve gone to the trouble of creating all those embryos, you have to keep 'em somewhere. For example, if they successfully generate 12 embryo’s, they may try to implant 6 now, and 6 later.

Some are deserted and/or discarded

[http://www.catholic-internet.org/issue/textonly/2newt3.htm](http://www.catholic-internet.org/issue/textonly/2newt3.htm)

Some are fought over.

There was a custody battle over 8 frozen embryos a few years ago IIRC, it was in the midwest. The couple was divorcing and previous attempts to impregnate the woman with their embryos had been unsuccessful. They still had 8 of the little buggars in frozen storage. She wanted “custody”. He didn’t want to have future children by his soon to be ex-wife. Ultimately, he won the case and (again IIRC) they were “donated” to an infertility clinic much to her horror and chagrin. A sticky can of worms.

I will try to dig up a cite on the custody thing if anyone would like to see one.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Commander\_Fortune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Commander\_Fortune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commander_Fortune)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/22 "2000-06-23T08:45:36Z")

</div>

error in the first link, which was a photo of a cryo-storage tank.

try this:

[http://www.advancedfertility.com/cryotank.htm](http://www.advancedfertility.com/cryotank.htm)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Commander\_Fortune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Commander\_Fortune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commander_Fortune)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/23 "2000-06-23T10:02:18Z")

</div>

[http://detroitnews.com/1998/metro/9806/25/06250317.htm](http://detroitnews.com/1998/metro/9806/25/06250317.htm)

Re: The “custody” of the 5 embryos.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/24 "2000-06-23T10:28:55Z")

</div>

I stand corrected.

S. Norman

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![smilingjaws](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@smilingjaws](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smilingjaws)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/25 "2000-06-23T21:42:20Z")

</div>

Don’t we still practice eugenics when women carrying a baby with down syndrome are encouraged to abort? Or when a person with a mental disability is sterilized? Seems to me I remember a mother going to court to get permission to sterilize her adolescent daughter who had a mental disability. I’m sure this goes on without court permission or intervention in some cases.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2000, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/26 "2000-06-24T01:31:03Z")

</div>

Sterilizing the retarded is eugenics, but look at the alternatives: Even more non-productive people. Plenty of subaverage people can work at ‘breakeven’ trade-skills type jobs, the high subaverage finding positions in sales (joke). Making knickknacks and baskets and such. With severe Down’s Syndrome, no such luck. The victims of DS are so bad off they’ll never be productive. Which means they’re a drag on someone, either their family (rare in this country) or all of us (Welfare, SSI, disability). They never put in, they just take out. It’s better all around if they are never born. Distinctions must be made between retardation caused by genetics (and therefore can be passed on) and retardation caused by disease or accident (and therefore cannot be passed on). Allowing the subnormal to raise families is another thread altogether.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2000, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/27 "2000-06-24T04:04:25Z")

</div>

Daniel, I thought that I was quite literate about which area of eugenics I was talking. Eugenics was explicitly meant to improve the European stock. That was the goal of the one who coined the word, the Scot Francis Galton. Later from the eugenicists came the corollary, that those of lesser stock must be as few as possible, or eliminated altogether. It was this aspect that was behind ovents in several countries.  
Agriculturalists later thought that they can apply the genetic tweaking that was already used in their field for thousands of years, and apply those techniques to the field of eugenics. It was thought to be a logical, evolutionary step. The biggest conventions related to agricutural-human eugenicists were held in the Nazi stronghold Cold Spring Harbor, New York. I was not proud when I learned that, coming from New York myself.

```
We have the science to repair the genes of embryos that is diagnosed with certain diseases, something which I favor, and eugenecists don't. After all the embryo is coming from 'lesser stock'.
```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\
**Post date:** [June 24, 2000, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/28 "2000-06-24T14:27:52Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> We have the science to repair the genes of embryos that is diagnosed with certain diseases.

Sadly, we don’t yet. There is no cure for most genetic diseases. We don’t even know which genes they’re carried on. And even if we did, there is currently no way to fix a person’s genes. Gene therapy is still in the future.  
But you are right on one point: Eugenics does not favor fixing, it favors ‘purity’. Genetics has promise. Eugenics does not.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Loki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3be4f8/32.png) [@Loki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loki)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/29 "2000-06-26T05:00:07Z")

</div>

Actually, Capacitor, Spider-Man isn’t a product of eugenics/evolution, as his superpowers are the result of radiation applied after his birth (by a bite from a radioactive spider), not from mutation. The X-Men, however, are though, being mutants and all. I can’t comment on the Powerpuff Girls.

Fine, fine, back to your serious discussion, sorry I spoke 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![egkelly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/db5fbb/32.png) [@egkelly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/egkelly)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/30 "2000-06-26T16:19:59Z")

</div>

In Robert Heinlein’s classic SF story (“Methusaleh’s Children”) he relates the problems of a group of superhumans-people (through selective mating) who are unbelievably long-lived. This group finds that they must keep their “gift” secret-the other humans are hateful when they learn how much these people will outlive them.  
So what’s the deal on this-could we have children who have 160 IQ’s, be Olympic athletes, and also be incredibly good-looking? I’m all for that!  
Why would anybody NOT want their children to be better off than themslves?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@ren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ren)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/31 "2000-06-26T22:58:30Z")

</div>

I picked these up [here](http://www.dictionary.com). **capacitor** , Note the ref to Galton’s own words. If you went by these sources, you might think you got the whole picture about him:

> [@](#):
>
> eu·gen·ics (y-jnks) n. (used with a sing. verb)
> 
> The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
> 
> Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
> 
> * * *
> 
> eugenics \Eu\*gen"ics, n.
> 
> The science of improving stock, whether human or animal. --F. Galton.
> 
> Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
> 
> * * *
> 
> eugenics n :
> 
> the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating) [ant: dysgenics]
> 
> Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[Encyclopedia.com](http://encyclopedia.com), on the other hand, has this to say, which is pretty close to what **capacitor** said:

> [@](#):
>
> eugenics
> 
> study of methods to improve inherited human characteristics. It is directed chiefly at discouraging reproduction among those considered unfit (or those carrying genetic diseases) and encouraging it in the fit, although there are many difficulties in defining which traits are most desirable. The first half of the 20th cent. saw extreme coercive applications of such principles by governments ranging from miscegenation laws and enforced sterilization of the insane in the U.S. and other nations to the HOLOCAUST of Nazi Germany. In recent years, interest in eugenics has largely focused on GENETIC SCREENING, although China enacted restrictions on marriages involving persons with certain disabilities and diseases in 1994.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Barney111](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Barney111](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barney111)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/32 "2000-06-26T23:10:31Z")

</div>

Eugenics is much, much older than what has been discussed here. The ancient Greeks were probably the first organized followers of eugenics. Plato even advocated infanticide and abortion to strengthen the Greek “stock”. See:[Eugenics](http://www.flinders.edu.au/topics/Morton/Victorians/VS5_Eugenics.htm).

“Social Darwinism” is merely the modern interpretation of this twisted concept.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@ren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ren)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/33 "2000-06-26T23:22:00Z")

</div>

OK, I read an article a while back in Scientific American about natural “immunity” to HIV. (Actually I believe they may have tested positive for the virus but never got sick). I’m gonna dig up a cite, but meantime, to advance the discussion:

The point of the article (if I remember it clearly) was that there was a certain genetic “defect” whcih caused a relatively benign malfunction in the immune system of certain populations. The defect had a role in the mechanism that HIV exploits to hijack the body’s immune system to reproduce. Because of the defect, the immune system worked slightly differently (not enough to cause a noticeable effect, apparently) but still worked. However, it interfered with HIV’s success.

What moved me most about the article, and what is relevant to this debate, is that what appeared to be, prior to the advent of HIV, a genetic “defect”, is now being reconsidered.

As I see it, the problem with eugenics, or with any genetic engineering, is that it involves judgments about what is good or bad or useful or not in the genetic structure, when such judgements are by nature restricted to current conditions and beliefs about what is good, which may change later.

So, we end up reducing genetic variation, which may cost us big time later.

I can already here the first rebuttal, which is that in may ways evolution itself is a way of reducing genetic variation. I would like to distinguish, however, between the relatively slow pressures of evolution, and the rapid changes that things like genetically engineered food crops cause.

While the history of evolution is littered with species that died out, some rather rapidly, it also seems to balance itself out by allowing room for genetic variation.

If we rapidly replace all the wheat crops in the world with three or four genetically engineered strains, within one or two generations, that’s a winnowing of the gene pool on a whole new scale.

Genetic engineering in general scares me for this reason. Eugenics is just an extreme case.

One more thing: I _am not_ trying to suggest that in no case is genetic engineering useful. But I sure as hell don’t expect the Monsanto corporation et al to be looking at the big picture when deciding how to engineer crops, or for that matter, medical specialists who are focused on specific diseases to see how their solutions may affect human biodiversity as a whole.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@ren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ren)\
**Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/34 "2000-06-26T23:25:23Z")

</div>

Found the [Scientific American](http://www.sciam.com/0997issue/0997obrien.html) article. Thank God for online archives…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\
**Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/35 "2000-06-27T04:21:53Z")

</div>

Thanks for the source, ren. I do submit though that without geneticists being eagle-eyed over the ‘defective’ gene and its effects on AIDS, it would have just been another defect tweaked out when it was its turn.

Can it be said withing reason that many so-called ‘defective’ genes might have some role in eliminating the onslaught of another pathology or infection in an organism, and these genes must be studied further?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\
**Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/36 "2000-06-27T04:27:05Z")

</div>

I meant within reason.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@ren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ren)\
**Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168/37 "2000-06-27T04:42:29Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> I do submit though that without geneticists being eagle-eyed over the ‘defective’ gene and its effects on AIDS, it would have just been another defect tweaked out when it was its turn.

That’s exactly what concerns me.

> [@](#):
>
> Can it be said withing reason that many so-called ‘defective’ genes might have some role in eliminating the onslaught of another pathology or infection in an organism, and these genes must be studied further?

See, but how do we know that in advance? A year before AIDS hit it just looked like a defect, you can’t decide to study the defect to see if it has some application for HIV because there is no HIV yet. There’s an arrogance involved in presuming to know what constitutes a “defect”. From an evolutionary perspective, there are neutral, advantageous, and disadvantageous mutations. And which are which depends on conditions which might change on any given day.

Mutations are just mutations. **We** assign a value to them ourselves based on our ideas of what is good or not. (OK, within reason: mutations that make the embryo non-viable, etc, are clearly always disadvantageous. But I think you get my point.)

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/eugenics-comic-book-science-or-mankinds-worst-threat/23168.md?page=1)